Discussions in the Buddhist public sphere

in twentieth-century Thailand:

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and his world

by
Tomomi Ito

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

of The Australian National University

August 2001
This thesis is entirely the result of my own work.

Tomomi Ito
 Table o f contents

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... ii
Abstract........................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction......................................................................................................................1

Chapter I
Early development of Buddhadasa’s thoughts and activities................................17

1. Buddhist movements in the early twentieth century................................18

2. Buddhadasa’s family background............................................................ 27
3. The lives of Buddhadasa and Thammathat up to the establishment
of Suan Mokkh.............................................................................................. 33
4. The activities of Suan Mokkh and the KhanaThammathan..................... 43
5. Important early exchanges with contemporary intellectuals.................... 48

Chapter II
Propagation of the dhamma by Buddhadasa and his followers.............................67

1. The journal Phutthasasana ....................................................................... 69

2. Propagation to elite intellectuals: the Buddhist Association of
Thailand......................................................................................................... 82
3. Wat Umong in Chiangmai: propagation into the areas of
other local traditions.......................................................................................91
4. Further propagation to the masses after the1950s...................................107

Chapter III
Empty mind: a controversial concept of Buddhadasa discussed
in the Buddhist public sphere...........................................................................147

1. Main features of empty mind in Buddhadasa’s thought 150

 2. Discussions with Kukrit Pramoj.............................................................154
3. Discussions by Buddhadasa’s opponents and followers........................165

Chapter IV
Abhidhamma groups in contemporary Thailand and their Conflict
with Buddhadasa..............................................................................................183

1. Abhidhamma studies and their history in contemporary Thailand......... 185

2. Buddhadasa’s lecture at the Buddhist Association in 1965 and
responses to i t ............................................................................................ 204

Chapter V
Meeting of Marxism and Buddhism: Buddhadasa and his Marxist
followers in 1946- 1958 ................................................. 216

1. Prevalence of Marxism in the political setting during 1946 - 1958 ......220

2. Buddhadasa and Prasoet Sapsunthon: Buddhists meet
Marxism....................................................................................................... 224
3. Intellectual exchanges of Buddhadasa and Thai Marxist
intellectuals: is Buddhism materialism or idealism?.................................... 230
4. Political position of Buddhadasa............................................................ 245

Chapter VI
Dhammic Socialism: development of social aspects in Thai Buddhism
through discussions with Marxism in the 1960s - 1990s.................................253

1. Development of Buddhadasa’s social thought and

Dhammic Socialism................................................................................... 256
2. Ideological Struggles between Buddhism and
Marxism: experience of Buddhadasa’s lay followers................................ 272
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 299

Bibliography............................................................................................................... 307
 Acknowledgements

My Ph.D. study at the Australian National University from April 1997 until
March 2001 was made possible by support from various institutions and individuals. I
thank the Australian National University and the Faculty of Asian Studies for the
opportunity to study, they also afforded me with an ANU Ph.D. scholarship and
fieldwork expenses. I am also grateful to the three foundations that also generously
granted the research funds for this study: the Fuji Xerox’s Setsutaro Kobayashi
Memorial Fund, the Daiwa Bank Foundation for Asia and Oceania, and the Toyota
Foundation. For my opportunity to study at the ANU, I am also indebted to Prof. Yoneo
Ishii, who introduced me to study at the ANU at an advanced level and whose
continuous encouragement has always been very significant for my work.
During the year-long fieldwork in Thailand from May 1998 onwards,
numerous people contributed to my research and interviews. Many thanks go to all the
people who co-operated in my interviews; their names are listed in the bibliography. I
thank the National Research Council of Thailand, which kindly arranged the conditions
of the fieldwork; the National Library of Thailand, the National Archives of Thailand,
and Suan Mokkhabalaram (abbr. Suan Mokkh), all of which significantly contributed to
this study by providing me with primary sources. Particularly at Suan Mokkh, Chaiya, I
am grateful to the kindness of Achan Pho, Santikaro Bhikkhu, Khun Metta Phanit, and
Phi Prani Thammasophinkun. For assistance in my research, I am grateful to Malinee
Kumsupa, who helped me to read Thai materials, accompanied me to interviews, and
collected documents. Also, indispensable advice and co-operation came from Prof. Eiji
Murashima, to whose tremendous knowledge about and experiences of Thailand I owe
very much.
Back in Canberra in May 1999 to write this thesis, thoughtful guidance was
given by supervisors at the Australian National University. I am particularly grateful to
Dr. Craig Reynolds, who continuously accompanied me on my marathon of thesis
writing and contributed to the structuring of the ideas in a better form. I also thank Dr.
Rey Ileto and Dr. Peter Jackson, who kindly read and commented on my work. Aside
from official supervision, my thanks go to Dr. Royce Wiles, whose advice as a specialist
in classical Indian literature and truly kind assistance in the burden of editing were
significantly helpful. Also, I am grateful to Achan Chintana Sandilands, who always
offered full and kind assistance in understanding Thai expressions and explaining
cultural background. In addition, I thank my friends at the Asian Studies Annex, who
often inspired me by interesting discussions and we spent many enjoyable times
together: Chalinee Hirano, Mariko Nakamura, Deborah Johnson, Mike Poole, Paitoon
Mahapannapom, Diana Carroll, Kikue Hamayotsu, Dr. Jacqueline Siapno, Lorraine
Salazar, Julius Bautista, and Kaori Maekawa.
Finally, I am grateful to my family, particularly my father Takayuki Ito, who is
always thoughtful about what I have been doing.
 Abstract

Studies on Thai Buddhism in Western languages have been focused on the

ideological aspect of popular beliefs. Especially, Thai people’s belief in merit-making
and kamma has received attention, because of its function to support the monastic
institution of the Sangha and the legitimacy of the monarchy. However, outside
Thailand there has been much less concern about the doctrinal understandings of Thai
Buddhists. When Thai Buddhist interpretations were examined, most studies were
interested in modern characteristics, such as scientificness and rationality.
This study explores discussions on doctrinal issues by Buddhist intellectuals
and people related to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in twentieth-century Thailand. I call the
totality of plural fora in which discussions about Buddhism took place the Buddhist
public sphere. Through the study of the Buddhist public sphere, this work aims to
examine the century of intellectual challenges that Thai people experienced in the realm
of Buddhism. It was not just Thai intellectuals’ voluntary incorporation into the
modernity that originated in the West.
In the twentieth century, Buddhism, both scriptural study and ascetic practice,
became no longer concealed in monasteries. From the beginning of the century, the
world of the Pali scriptures became available to the masses through the expansion of
ecclesiastical education, Thai translation of Pali scriptures and foreign Buddhist journals,
and the distribution of low priced booklets of monks’ sermons. Based on the newly
acquired knowledge, Buddhism, which had long been the religion of the Thais,
developed into an intellectual interest for people to seek right understanding. In relation
to the issues that Buddhadasa raised in the Buddhist public sphere, people not only
discussed Buddhist concepts and theories, such as empty mind and the Abhidhamma,
but they also examined them in dialogue with Marxism. During the Cold War period of
ideological conflict, Buddhism in Thailand nurtured a social thought that can provide a
critical perspective to the modem, capitalist society, even after the decline of Marxism.

iii
Introduction: Studies of Buddhism and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in
twentieth-century Thailand

The life of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (1906 - 1993) spanned most of the twentieth
century. Over these many decades Thai subjects also became Thai citizens. During the
reign of King Chulalongkom (r. 1868 - 1910), a system of public education was
introduced in which meritocracy was a principle, and debt bondage and the corvee
system came to an end. In the reign of his son, King Vajiravudh (r. 1910 - 1925), the
poll tax was imposed not only on commoners but also on the members of royal family,
on government officials, and on military commanders. But resentment of the continuing
privileged position of the royal family, which went against the principle of meritocracy,
laid the foundation for the 1932 Constitutional Revolution led by the People’s Party,
whose members came from the class of highly educated bureaucrats, a new group of
privileged citizens. Socialist ideals also had an influence among new intellectuals in the
People’s Party, as well as among urban Chinese labourers whose citizenship was a
sensitive issue for the Thai government.
The abolition of the absolute monarchy opened up opportunities for ordinary
citizens outside the court to control the nation. However, the newly introduced
democratic system did not follow an ideal model. The People’s Party and bureaucrats
monopolised the parliament and the cabinet, and, especially after Field Marshal Phibun
Songkhram became the Prime Minister, military bureaucrats became dominant
politically. General elections with multiparty competition only started in 1946 under the
power of the former Regent, Pridi Phanomyong, but the ensuing events in Thai politics
were repetitive coup d’etats and military rule. The expulsion of the military dictators by
the student uprising on 14 October 1973 demonstrated the people’s demand for a fair
social and political order, although the military returned to politics in 1976 because of
the radicalising conflicts between communist armed struggle and counter-insurgencies.
Toward the end of the century, democracy as a system of politics to reflect the opinions
of each individual was becoming more respected in practice, however at the same time,
people started to realise that what it reflected the most was the interests of influential
business interests rather than those of ordinary citizens. A new direction indicated by
public intellectuals in the last decade was to strengthen “civil society”, which is the
1
realm of ordinary citizens who have their own opinions and interests.
There was a history of twentieth-century Thailand aside from parliamentary
democracy. The 1932 Constitutional Revolution did not actualise an ideal democracy
immediately, but there were critical expressions of public opinion about both the
absolute monarchy and the People’s Party’s monopoly of power, both before and after
the revolutionary event. The expectation of political opportunity to participate in state
politics encouraged Thai citizens to think of their own choices, ideas, and activities in
other realms than politics.
Discussions of Buddhism, which were one of the areas of the Thai people’s
intellectual concern, were also enlivened in the face of this political event.
Coincidentally, it was the same year of the Constitutional Revolution when Buddhadasa
established, in his hometown, his place of dhamma practice, Suan Mokkh, and the
following year he started his journal, Phutthasasana. Through the print media,
Buddhadasa established his own channel to participate in the Buddhist public sphere of
Thailand, his aim was broader intellectual communication with the masses. In fact, the
controversial interpretations by which Buddhadasa Bhikkhu provoked his Thai
contemporaries were a part of the discussions that occurred in the Thai Buddhist public
sphere. What is more, their to wathi, or to thiang kan, “conflict in a public debate”, was
not only entertaining for the Thai populace, but can also introduce us to a significant
aspect of the intellectual history of Thailand.
There were at least four characteristics I can trace in what I call the Buddhist
public sphere in twentieth-century Thailand.
First, Buddhism did not have monolithic unity. Buddhism was not just
statically transmitted generation by generation, but instead was an inspiring system of
thought which people used to interpret the reality of their changing society. Even with a
common understanding of doctrine, diverse opinions and interpretations always existed.
Individuals, ordained or lay Buddhists, could freely express their opinions, and the
Sangha could not totally control this diversity. Even though some opinions were
political and polemical issues for the Sangha administration, a certain diversity of ideas
could be tolerated in the public sphere as far as it was acceptable to the political
authority and was demanded by the people. These diverse views were most significantly
examined by other individuals who made up the Buddhist public sphere, and conflicting
2
arguments could only seek hegemony over the others by appealing to the public.
Second, the Buddhist public sphere was not represented by the Sangha
administration, although of course some monks participated in it. Unlike the Sangha,
which is an association that restricts its membership to monks and novices, the Buddhist
public sphere was open to everybody, especially to lay Buddhists who were actively
involved in it. The ordained status was respected, but it could not enforce total authority
over lay people. Lay people did not refrain from their disagreements and critical
arguments merely because certain ideas were expressed by monks. Some were just laity,
but were acquainted with Buddhist doctrine because of their past experience as a monk
with ecclesiastical education and/or they had practised meditation. In the case of women,
whose ordination lineage was ceased to exist in Theravada Buddhism, they trained
themselves as renunciates, even though they were officially regarded as part of the laity.
Whatever the ordination status, higher spiritual attainment and more convincing
arguments w'ere respected in the Buddhist public sphere.
Third, exchanging ideas using mass communication techniques was an
important dimension of the Buddhist public sphere. Those who had a common opinion
established a group in order to share their ideas with the wider public. Those groups
were often established on lay people’s initiative and were under their management, they
had certain monks or lay teachers as their advisors. As activities, they organised public
lectures and discussions, published journals and booklets, and broadcast on radio and
television in order to propagate their ideas. When a group conflicted with other groups,
critical campaigns were often conducted in order to gain support from the public by
discrediting the opponent.
Fourth, the Buddhist public sphere in Thailand was a public forum of
discussion among Buddhist groups not only concerning interpretations of Buddhist
doctrines and scriptures, but also for a way for Buddhism to meet and to be challenged
by other systems of thought. For example, in twentieth-century Thailand, Marxism with
its materialist ideology accused Buddhism of being an impractical idealism, especially
with regard to social problems. Buddhist thinkers faced with Marxist ideologies needed
to examine Buddhism for its relevance in contemporary society. Buddhism’s
inter-ideological dialogue was also a significant part of the Buddhist public sphere.
By introducing the concept of the Buddhist public sphere, this study intends to
3
examine discussions of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and his associates in the twentieth-century
Thai context. In order to understand Buddhadasa, who has been highly respected as a
Buddhist monastic intellectual in Thailand, but at the same time has been regarded as a
controversial or even heretical figure, the predominant approaches toward Thai
Buddhism seem to have considerable difficulty evaluating his role.
Compared with other Theravada Buddhist Asian scholars from such countries
as Burma and Sri Lanka, there have been fewer Thai Buddhist scholars involved in Pali
scholarship in the West, for example, with the Pali Text Society, perhaps because
Thailand had no experience of European colonialism. Thailand and its Theravada
Buddhism is seen by Western philologist scholars as the first place where they found
Pali through a French missionary in the seventeenth century12, and where some of the
oldest manuscripts were found“. In this situation, it is highly unlikely that Buddhadasa’s
Thai translations and interpretations of Pali texts have been consulted by European
scholars of Pali, even though in Thailand he has long been regarded as one of the most
knowledgeable scholars of Buddhism.
Instead, anthropologists and sociologists have more intensively studied
Buddhism in Thailand. In lieu of any doctrinal study of Buddhism, they focused on the
function of Buddhism, as the religious norm of the unordained, ordinary members of a
community. In contrast with the former, which is called “philosophical religion” or
“great tradition”, the latter popular aspect of Buddhism is called “practical religion”,
“little tradition”, or certain regional “vicissitudes”3. Popular beliefs in Buddhism, which

1 According to Norman, it has long been considered that Simon de La Loubere, an envoy of King
Louis XIV, was the first Westerner to report the sacred language of Buddhist Siamese in his book
published in France in 1691. However, Laneau, a French missionary, reported in 1680 that he studied
Pali in 1672, and wrote a Grammar and a Dictionary of both Pali and Thai. In their works, Pali was
first known by the West in Thai pronunciation, cited by the French as “Balie” or “Balye” (K. R.
Norman, “The present state of Pali studies, and future tasks”, Collected papers volume VI (Oxford:
The Pali Text Society), pp. 68 - 69).
2 K. R. Norman, “The present state of Pali studies, and future tasks”, pp. 81 - 83; K. R. Norman,
“Pali philology and the study of Buddhism”, Collected papers volume IV (Oxford: The Pali Text
Society), p. 85. Pali manuscripts are a major focus. See O. von Hinüber, “Pali manuscripts of
canonical texts from North Thailand - a preliminary report”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 71
(1983), pp. 75 - 88.
3 “Philosophical religion” and “practical religion” are concepts of E. R. Leach (E. R. Leach,
“Introduction”, E. R. Leach (ed.), Dialectic in practical religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1968), pp. 1 - 6). The concepts of “great tradition” and “little tradition” are proposed by
Robert Redfield (Robert Redfield, Peasant society and culture (Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1956)). Melford Spiro called the religious system practised by Burmese Buddhists “Burmese
vicissitude”, as he did not fully agree with the dichotomy of “great tradition” and “little tradition”,
4
intermingled animism and extra-canonical supernaturalism, have been excluded from
doctrinal or canonical studies of Buddhism, but through the anthropological approach
they have contributed to clarify the ideological foundation of the villagers’ world.
Concerning Thai people’s practice of Buddhism, for example, S. J. Tambiah studied
social structure by investigating religious rituals and the ideology of merit-making
activities, which frame the reciprocal relationship between monks and lay people**4.
Because of the “ideology of merit”, monks are supported by lay people who can
accumulate merit by supporting monks economically. However, it is difficult to
examine Buddhadasa in the framework of the study of “practical religion”. Buddhadasa
also belonged to the social context of Thai Buddhism, but he inquired into Pali
scriptures, namely the realm of “philosophical religion”. His search for a normative
interpretation was an attempt to take a leap away from the conventional practices of
Buddhism in Thai society.
Historical studies on Thai Buddhism by such scholars as Ishii and Tambiah
contributed to outline a structural framework for pre-modem monarchical rule in
Theravada Buddhist dynasties5. The study of the relationship between monks who
abstain from economic production and lay people who have been their material
supporters expanded to examine the relationship between the Sangha, the association of

which were introduced in the comparative study of civilisation (Melford E. Spiro, Buddhism and
society: a great tradition and its Burmese vicissitude (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970,
1982), p. 5).
4 S. J. Tambiah, “The ideology of merit and the social correlates of Buddhism in a Thai village”, E.
R. Leach (ed.), Dialectic in practical religion, pp. 41 - 121; S. J. Tambiah, Buddhism and the spirit
cults in North-East Thailand (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Apart from Tambiah,
there are anthropological studies from a similar perspective, such as: Jane Bunnag, Buddhist monk,
Buddhist layman: a study of urban monastic organization in central Thailand (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1973); and B. J. Terwiel, Monks and magic: an analysis of religious
ceremonies in Central Thailand (London: Curzon Press, 1979). Yoneo Ishii integrated the
perspective of practical religion in his historical study of social structure in Theravada Buddhist
society (Yoneo Ishii, Jozabu Bukkyo no seiji shakai gaku (The political sociology of Theravada
Buddhism) (Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1975), which is translated by Peter Hawkes as: Sangha, state, and
society: Thai Buddhism in history (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986)).
5 Ishii, Sangha, state, and society, S. J. Tambiah, World conqueror and world renouncer: a study of
Buddhism and polity in Thailand against a historical background (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976). Articles based on this perspective are collected in: Bardwell L. Smith (ed.),
Religion and legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma (Chambersburg, PA: ANIMA
Books, 1978). For a study on the history of the Theravada Buddhist monarchy of Burma, see
Michael Aung-Thwin, Pagan: the origins of modern Burma (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1985). With more focus on modernisation in Thailand there is: Somboon Suksamaran, Political
Buddhism in Southeast Asia: the role of the Sangha in the modernization of Thailand (London: G.
Hurst, 1977).
5
monks, and kingship, the prime patron of the Sangha. A monarchy, which is considered

to reign on the top of the hierarchy of merit accumulation in past lives, can be

legitimated as a righteous rule by contributing to the prosperity of the religion, which is

embodied by the Sangha. Also, studies of the ideology of millenarian movements

revealed that the Buddhist dhamma or “righteous virtue”, which is supposed to be

embodied in secular rulers, could legitimate their rule, while a lack of it became a

reason for replacing them6.

This perspective of the political functions of Buddhist ideology was examined

by Jackson in his study on the social and political situation in the 1980s78.He argued that

the newly emerged urban middle class ideologically challenged the social establishment

stratum by their new interpretation of Buddhism, which taught universally accessible

nibbäna and had no requirement for past merit accumulations that legitimised the existing

social hierarchy . However, actual doctrinal conflicts and a survey of the socio­

economic background of the followers of what he called reformist Buddhism, including

Buddhadasa, P. A. Payutto Bhikkhu, Panyanantha Bhikkhu, Santi Asoke, and

Thammakai, are not supportive of his argument9. Class difference and political and

6 Yoneo lshii, “A note on Buddhistic millenarian revolts in Northeastern Siam”, Journal of

Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 121 - 126; Charles Keyes, “Millennialism, Theravada
Buddhism, and Thai society”, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (February 1977), pp. 238 -
302. Tanabe and Chatthip also discussed holy men rebellions in Thailand by looking at them as a
force of social change rather than their religious aspect (Shigeharu Tanabe, “Ideological practice in
peasant rebellions: Siam at the turn of the twentieth century”, Andrew Turton and Shigeharu Tanabe
(eds.), History and peasant consciousness in South East Asia (Osaka: National Museum of
Ethnology, 1984), pp. 75 -110; Chatthip Nartsupha, “The ideology of holy men revolts in North East
Thailand”, Turton and Tanabe (eds.), History and peasant consciousness in South East Asia, pp. I l l
- 134). One of the most recent studies on holy men is: Constance M. Wilson, “The holy man in the
history of Thailand and Laos ”, Journal of Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 28, No. 2 (September 1997),
jpp. 345 - 364.
7 Peter A. Jackson, Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict: the political functions of urban Thai
Buddhism (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989).
8 Jackson, Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict, p. 52.
9 For example, Suwanna pointed out that the Santi Asoke group was categorised together with P. A.
Payutto, who severely criticised the group from a doctrinal point of view, and Grant Olson’s study
has indicated a rather reactionary aspect of P. A. Payutto (Grant Allan Olson, “A person-centered
ethnography of Thai Buddhism: the life of Phra Rajavaramuni (Prayudh Payutto)”, Ph.D.
dissertation, Cornell University, 1989; Suwanna Satha-Anand, review of Buddhism, legitimation,
and conflict: the political functions o f urban Thai Buddhism, by Peter A. Jackson, Crossroads, vol. 5
No. 1 (1990), pp. 105 - 108). Marja-Leena Heikkilä-Hom’s recent survey on the social, educational,
and religious background of people in the Santi Asoke group examined and more clearly presented
the components of the group’s followers. She concludes that the majority of the ordinary lay people
came from rural low-educated origins, whereas the monks, who are the minority core of the group,
were more divergently both from the educated lower middle class and from the urban high-educated
upper middle class (Marja-Leena Heikkilä-Hom, Buddhism with open eyes: belief and practice of
6
religious preferences do not necessarily coincide with each other. I will present in this
thesis biographies of both Buddhadasa’s followers and opponents, they were basically
from a middle class background, he has both supporters and opponents in the upper
class, and their political attitude also varied. I rather argue the Buddhist public sphere as
inclusive of people from any kind of class origin interested in free exchanges of
opinions. I think that it is such opportunities that Thai people have been pursuing
throughout the twentieth century.
Historians also pursued their studies in administrative and educational reforms
in the Thai Sangha from the middle of the nineteenth century. Craig J. Reynolds studied
the late nineteenth-century reform of the Sangha, which was underway since the 1782
restoration of the order, was accelerated by Prince Mongkut’s rational movement called
Thammayut, and was set up to control monasteries throughout the entire kingdom by
Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Warorot as a centralised and hierarchical national
institution10. As a part of the late nineteenth-century reform of the Sangha, Zack and
Ishii explored the ecclesiastical education curricula and examinations, which
standardised the doctrinal understanding of Thai monks*11. These reforms of Buddhism
were considered as precursors of Buddhadasa’s rational interpretations.
While, anthropologists explored not only the practice but also the history of
forest monks, who from the late nineteenth century through to the twentieth century
lived in a peripheral position of the Sangha apparatus. Tambiah’s work placed forest
monks in Thailand in broader perspectives, such as that of traditional Buddhist
meditation procedures, traditions of forest monks in Theravada Southeast Asia, and
their biographies in comparison with the Buddha’s life12. Taylor discussed rather recent
changes the forest monks have experienced, for instance in the ecology of their forest

Santi Asoke (Bangkok: Fah apai, 1997), p. 208). Also, Samana Phothirak, who is the leader of the
Santi Asoke Group, criticised Buddhadasa and his followers as privileged compared with his
followers from lower social strata, although he respect Buddhadasa as his teacher. See, Satcha
Wimuttinan (edited from a public lecture of Phra Phothirak), Panha sangkhom thi kae mai dai phro
kansuksa phutthasasana phit phlat (Social problems that cannot be solved because of wrong
education in Buddhism) (Bangkok: Rongphim mulanithi thamma santi, 1985).
10 Craig James Reynolds, “The Buddhist monkhood in nineteenth century Thailand”, Ph.D.
dissertation, Cornell University, 1973; Craig Reynolds (ed.), Autobiography: the life of
Prince-Patriarch Vajirahana o f Siam, 1860 - 1921 (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1979).
11 Stephan J. Zack, “Buddhist education under Prince Wachirayan Warorot”, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1977; Ishii, Sangha, state, and society, chapter 5.
12 Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, The Buddhist saints o f the forest and the cult of amulets (Cambridge:

7
and their incorporation into the nation-state13. Kamala’s most recent study on this topic
provided rich information about historical conditions and the practices of forest monks
throughout the twentieth century up until the present14. Her work contributed to the
study of Thai Buddhism by examining the biographies of forest monks, which have
been abundantly distributed in Thailand by their followers, but which have not been
utilised as historical and ethnographical sources.
Although Buddhadasa is also often called a forest monk by Thai people,
because he stayed at Suan Mokkh, which is far from Bangkok, and located in a rural
area in Chaiya, Southern Thailand, he should not be categorised together with the forest
monks in Northeastern Thailand. In fact, Buddhadasa had no connection with Achan
Man, the charismatic monk teacher of those forest monks in the Northeast, but he learnt
a way of ascetic practice from the Pali scriptures, which purport to document the way of
the Buddha. Buddhadasa rather started off as a town monk engaged in scriptural studies,
and through his expertise in Pali and extensive knowledge gained from English
materials on Buddhism, he was highly respected as an intellectual preacher. This was
clearly a contrast with the forest monks in the Northeast, who had little formal or
ecclesiastical education, who hardly expressed their religiosity in words, but their
integral personal accomplishment through ascetic practice could teach people to follow
the way they actualised.
Aside from the studies on forest monks, there were rather fewer studies on Thai
Buddhism in the middle of the twentieth century, but more were done on the new
phenomena after the 1980s. The legal and structural changes in the Thai Sangha after
the 1932 Constitutional Revolution were examined by Ishii15, and the situation of
Buddhism in the late 1970s, when Thailand experienced the polarised ideological
conflict, were studied by Somboon and Keyes16. On the other hand, the reformative

Cambridge University Press, 1984).

13 J. L. Taylor, Forest monks and the nation-state: an anthropological study in Northeastern
Thailand (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993).
14 Kamala Tiyavanich, Forest recollections: wandering monks in twentieth-century Thailand
(Chiangmai: Silkworm Books, 1997).
13 Ishii, Sangha, state, and society, chapter 6, 7; Yoneo Ishii, “Church and state in Thailand”, Asian
survey, Vol. VIII, No. 10 (1968), pp. 864 - 871.
16 Somboon Suksamran, Buddhism and politics in Thailand: a study of socio-political change and
political activism of the Thai Sangha (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982);
Charles F. Keyes, “Political crisis and militant Buddhism in contemporary Thailand”, Bardwell L.
Smith (ed.), Religion and legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma (Chambersburg, PA:
8
attempts in Thai Buddhism after the 1980s were examined for a variety of issues, such

as community development , forest conservation , newly emerged groups, including

Santi Asoke and Thammakai19, and as a religious phenomenon in the late capitalist era20.

Influential teachers, such as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and P. A. Payuttho Bhikkhu, perhaps

gained the attention of scholars when issues in the studies of Thai Buddhism came to

light21.
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu has been studied by several scholars. Although

Buddhadasa’s works had been translated into English in Thailand by the end of the

1960s"“, it seems that Buddhadasa became widely known in the West by being

ANIMA Books, 1978), pp. 147 - 164. For a religious analysis on the 14 October uprising in 1973,
see also: Frank E. Reynolds, “Legitimation and rebellion: Thailand’s civic religion and the student
uprising of October, 1973”, Bardwell L. Smith (ed.), Religion and legitimation of power in Thailand,
Laos, and Burma, pp. 134 - 146.
1' Seri Phongphit, Religion in a changing society: Buddhism, reform and the role of monks in
community development in Thailand (Hong Kong: Arena, 1988).
18 Suchira Payulpitack, “Changing provinces of concern: a case-study of the social impact of the
Buddhadasa movement”, Sojourn, Vol. 7 No. 1 (February 1992) , pp. 39 - 68; Jim Taylor, “Social
activism and resistance on the Thai frontier: the case of Phra Prajak Khuttajitto”, Bulletin of
concerned Asian scholars, Vol. 25, No. 2 (April - June 1993), pp. 3 - 16; Nicola Tannenbaum,
“Protest, tree ordination, and the changing context of political ritual”, Ethnology, vol. 39, No. 2
(Spring 2000), pp. 109 - 127.
19 Apart from Jackson’s above-cited work in 1989, other examples are, Jim Taylor, “New Buddhist
movements in Thailand*, an individualistic revolution, reform and political dissonance”, Journal of
Southeast Asians studies, vol. 21 No. 1 (March 1990), pp. 135 - 154; Edwin Zehner, “Reform
symbolism of a Thai middle-class sect: the growth and appeal of the Thammakai movement”,
Journal of Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 21 No. 2 (September 1990), pp. 402 - 426; Donald K.
Swearer, “Fundamentalism in Theravada Buddhism”, Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby (eds.),
Fundamentalisms observed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 628 - 690; Jim Taylor,
“Buddhist revitalization, modernization, and social change in contemporary Thailand”, Sojourn, Vol.
8 No. 1 (February 1993); Apinya Fuengfusakul, “Empire of crystal and utopian commune: two types
of contemporary Theravada reform in Thailand”, Sojourn, Vol. 8 No. 1 (February 1993), pp. 153 -
183; Richard A. O’Connor, “Interpreting Thai religious change: temples, Sangha reform and social
change”, Journal of Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 24 No. 2 (September 1993), pp. 330 - 339. Aside
from Santi Asoke and Thammakai, the supematuralist group of Suchart Kosonkittiwong was also
studied by Peter A. Jackson, “The Hupphaasawan movement: millenarian Buddhism among the Thai
political elite”, Sojourn, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1988), pp. 134 - 170.
"° Peter A. Jackson, “The enchanting spirit of Thai capitalism: the cult of Laung Phor Khoon and the
post-modernization of Thai Buddhism”, South East Asian research, Vol. 7 No. 1 (March 1999), pp. 5
- 60; Peter A. Jackson, “Royal spirits, Chinese gods, and magic monks: Thailand’s boom time
religious prosperity”, South East Asia research, Vol. 7, No. 3 (November 1999), pp. 245 - 320.
21 About Payuttho, see Grant Olson, “A person-centered ethnography of Thai Buddhism”. Olson
also examined the understandings of holy water by Buddhadasa, Santi Asoke, and P. A. Payuttho in:
Grant A. Olson, “Cries over spilled holy water: ‘complex’ responses to a traditional Thai religious
practice”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March 1991), pp. 75 - 85.
"*12*8 According to the bibliography of Gabaude and a list of foreign language translations by Santikaro
Bhikkhu, Buddhadasa’s works had been distributed in English at least from 1963 (Louis Gabaude,
“Oeuvres traduites en anglais”, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande:
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Paris: Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1988), pp. 581 - 585; Santikaro
Bhikkhu, “Translations and publications of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in foreign languages” (last updated
9
introduced in Swearer’s book, Buddhism in transition, which was published in 1970 in
the United States" . In this book, Swearer introduced Buddhadasa as a monk who was
called a “Stream-winner” (Pali: sotäpanna) in Thailand. He also summarised
Buddhadasa’s background and the main features of his thought, such as emptiness, his
critical attitude toward Abhidhamma, his interpretations by making a distinction
between “human language” (phasa khon) and “dhammic language” (phasa tham), and a
comparison of Buddhism with Christianity. These points are also shared by later
detailed studies on Buddhadasa. Swearer further published collections of his translations
of Buddhadasa’s works, which expanded opportunities for people outside Thailand to
know of Buddhadasa24. In one of his recent articles, he examined Buddhadasa’s
interpretation of the Buddha in comparison with classical biographies of the Buddha
and modern interpretations from the late nineteenth century proceeding forwards to
Buddhadasa25. As a study of Buddhadasa’s scholarship, it confirmed the modemist,
demythologising character of Buddhadasa’s thought, which excluded supernatural myth
and legend in the classical stories, rather than attempting to reconcile the traditional
myths and modem science, unlike his modem precursors.
In 1988, two large monographs on Buddhadasa came out, one in English and
one in French. The English work by Peter A. Jackson, Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker
for the modern world, explored modem characteristics of Buddhadasa’s thought, and its
radical implication for the existing social order in Thailand26. Jackson argued that

on 28 September 1997)). In the late 1960s several translations were done by Nagasena Bhikkhu and
Ariyananda Bhikkhu (Roderick Bucknell), from the Sublime Life Mission, a group of Buddhadasa’s
lay supporters in Bangkok. Swearer also published an article on Buddhadasa in Thailand in 1968
(Donald K. Swearer, “Buddhism, Christianity and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa”, Visakha Puja 2511
(Bangkok: Buddhist Association, 1968), pp. 77 - 90, cited in Louis Gabaude, “Oeuvres relatives a
Buddhadasa en anglais”, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande, p. 630).
Although Buddhadasa’s name was not mentioned, in 1939 K. P. Landon spoke of a letter from “a
friend in Chaiya who has founded a Buddhist missionary school called Buddhanigama”, whom I
assume was Buddhadasa’s brother, Thammathat (K. P. Landon, Thailand in transition: a brief survey
of cultural trends in the five years since the Revolution of 1932 (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1939), pp. 270 - 271). I thank Santikaro Bhikkhu for making his list of translations of
Buddhadasa’s works available.
23 Donald K. Swearer, Buddhism in transition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970), pp. 105
-1 1 4 .
"4 For examples, Donald K. Swearer (trans. & ed.), Toward the truth (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1971); Donald K. Swearer (trans. & ed.), Me and mine: selected essays o f Bhikkhu
Buddhadasa (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).
"5 Donald K. Swearer, “Bhikkhu Buddhadasa’s interpretation of the Buddha”, Journal o f the
American Academy of Religion, Vol. LXIV, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 313 - 336.
26 Peter A. Jackson, Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker for the modern world (Bangkok: The Siam
10
Buddhadasa ideologically challenged the hierarchical order of society by his rational,
demythologising interpretation of kamma and nibbäna , by the distinction of human
language (a conventional understanding of a religious concept) and dhammic language
(an interpretation of it). He supported this argument by citing Buddhadasa’s
interpretation of kamma as a psychological phenomenon instead of merit accumulation in
past lives, and nibbäna as being universally accessible even for lay people here and now
without depending on monks in the Sangha, which officially legitimates the state.
Jackson presumed a Protestant type of reformation in Buddhadasa’s thought.
Lay people’s access to nibbäna can not only be ascertained in the Pali scriptures, but it
had scarcely become an issue of unorthodox interpretation by Buddhadasa. Jackson
examined Kukrit Pramoj’s criticism of Buddhadasa, that he taught lokuttara dhamma

(supra-mundane teaching for nibbäna) to lay people, but Kukrit did not represent either
the traditional orthodoxy of the Sangha or of the social establishment27. Buddhadasa had
most important intellectual exchange with and support from elite bureaucrats in the
Ministry of Justice, whose salary and social status were at high levels, even King
Bhumibol and his Queen Mother respected his teachings28. Also, Buddhadasa had few
conflicts with the Sangha elders about his interpretations, but he enjoyed mutual respect
and communication with academic monks of both the Thammayut and Mahanikai
Orders29. These relationships of these high status individuals with Buddhadasa do not
support Jackson’s arguments.
In French, Louis Gabaude’s large work, Une hermeneutique bouddhique
contemporaine de Thailande: Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, studied Buddhadasa’s thought as a
system of hermeneutics . Gabaude especially looked at Buddhadasa’s unique explana­
tions of religious concepts in his sermons. He identified three major resources for the
young Buddhadasa to develop his hermeneutic theory: a Western-originated rational,
critical approach to the Pali canon; Zen principles; and acceptance of all teachings,

Society under Royal Patronage, 1988).

27 Jackson examined the discussion of Kukrit and Buddhadasa in Chapter 6 of his book,
Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker for the modern world.
28 See, for example, Chapter 1, pp. 59 - 65, and Chapter 3, footnote 51.
29 See, for example, Chapter 1, pp. 55 - 59, and Chater 4, p. 202.
30 For assistance in reading Gabaude’s academic French I am grateful for help from Dr. Royce
Wiles.
11
 Ti

including that of non-Buddhist Indian philosophers and of Christianity . Through these

influences, Gabaude argued that Buddhadasa interpreted an authentic meaning among
the diverse meanings of a concept, and equated opposite concepts, such as good/evil and
nibbäna/samsära Compared with other studies on Buddhadasa, in which his thought is
characterised as modem, scientific, and demythologising traditional religious beliefs,
Gabaude did not solely emphasise Buddhadasa’s rational interpretations, but also
examined it in the broader context of the religious philosophies of Buddhism,
Christianity and Theosophy. Especially, he indicated that Buddhadasa’s characteristic
teachings, such as the hermeneutical theory, criticism of the Abhidhamma, conditioned
arising, and emptiness, remind one of the Mädhyamika school of Nägärjuna in Mahäyäna
Buddhism33. Gabaude’s work also explored a lot of Thai materials, including both
works by Buddhadasa and those related to him, but the orientation of his study suggests
a Western-centred perspective34. In Gabaude’s language-based study on Buddhadasa’s
hermeneutics, the Thai people’s perceptions and the significance of his teaching in a
historical context do not become of interest for him, with the exception of the keen Thai
critics of Buddhadasa.
However, most Thai scholars’ studies on Buddhadasa were also interested in

Jl Gabaude, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande, pp. 51 - 53.

32 Gabaude, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande, Chapter II.
Gabaude wrote, “En fait le Mahäyäna auquel Buddhadasa s ’est interesse et qu’il reconnait vouloir
faire entendre, n’est pas celui de la Terre Pure par exemple, mais celui de Mädhyamika. A propos de la
theorie hermeneutique, de la critique de 1’Abhidhamma, de la Production Conditionnee comme
Systeme de dependence essentielle et non temporelle, de la mort avant la mort, de la vacuite des
esprits, nous avons eu l ’occasion d’attirer dejä 1’attention sur la filiation de ces enseignements” (In
fact the Mahäyäna in which Buddhadasa was interested and which he recognised that he wanted to
spread, was for example not that of the Pure Land, but that of the Mädhyamika. With regard to the
hermeneutical theory, with the criticism of the Abhidhamma, with conditioned arising as a system of
essential dependence and not temporal, with death before death, with the emptiness of ghosts, we
have had occasion to already call attention to the lineage of these teachings) (Gabaude, Une
hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande, p. 400). Although Gabaude did not assert
that Buddhadasa was actually influenced either by a study of or a scholar on Madhyamika school, he
quoted Buddhadasa’s words, which said that he found a typical idea of the Madhyamika, “nibbäna in
samsära' in English and German books (Phutthathat Phikkhu, Thalaengkan kiao kap 5 0 pi Suan Mok
(Announcement about fifty years of Suan Mokkh) (1982), p. 10, quoted in Gabaude, Une
hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande, p. 401).
Gabaude often overemphasised western influence on Buddhadasa. For example, Gabaude wrote,
“ ... il est sür que l’activite du mouvement bouddhiste occidental, en particulier de certains
bouddhistes occidentaux, a eu une influence determ inate, encore que generalement occultee, sur
Buddhadasa (... it is certain that the activity of the western Buddhist movement, in particular of
certain western Buddhists, has had a determining influence, generally somewhat hidden, on
Buddhadasa) (Gabaude, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande, p. 47; italics
added by Ito).
12
the philosophical content of his thought. Buddhadasa’s interpretation of religious
concepts and his method of inter-religious dialogue has been of interest to Thai
Christian scholars, both Catholic and Protestant. Seri Phongphit, a former Catholic
priest, wrote a Ph.D. dissertation entitled, “The problem of religious language: a study
of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Ian Ramsey as models for a mutual understanding of
Buddhism and Christianity” 33. A Protestant theologian, Maen Pongudom, did a
comparative study of Presbyterian missionaries sent to modem Thailand, early Church
apologists in Greece, and Buddhadasa36. In terms of religious studies, which specialised
in Buddhism, Patarapom Sirikanchana compared the concept of dhamma of Prince
Patriarch Wachirayan Warorot, the late nineteenth-century Sangha reformer, and that of
Buddhadasa37, and Suwanna Satha-Anand compared Buddhadasa’s thought with Mahä-
yana philosophy38. In examining the relevance of religious teachings to socio-economic

conditions, Tavivat Puntarigvivat studied Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism in

comparison with Latin American liberation theology , and Pricha Changkhwanyun
examined Buddhadasa’s thought in relation to politics40. Also in a study of education
philosophy, Buddhadasa’s proposal of chit wang, or the empty mind, was examined by
Peerachat Saccavadit41. In all these studies scholars sought to examine either a
particular aspect of Buddhadasa’s thought or its application to a certain issue.
Suchira Payulpitack’s doctoral dissertation is perhaps one of the few

33 Michael Seri Phongphit, “The problem of religious language: a study of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and
Ian Ramsey as models for a mutual understanding of Buddhism and Christianity”,
Inaugural-dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der Hochschule für Philosophie /
Philosophische Fakultät SJ, München, 1978. I thank Dr. Louis Gabaude for kindly allowing me to
access this thesis from his collections of Buddhadasa related works.
36 Maen Pongudom, “Apologetic and missionary proclamation: exemplified by American
Presbyterian missionaries to Thailand (1828 - 1978), early Church apologists: Justin Martyr,
Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the Venerable Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, a Thai Buddhist
monk-apologist”, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1979.1 thank
Dr. Louis Gabaude for kindly allowing me to access this thesis.
3/ Patarapom Sirikanchana, “The concept of dhamma in Thai Buddhism: a study in the thought of
Vajiranana and Buddhadasa”, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, 1985.
38 Suwanna Sathanan (Suwanna Satha-Anand), Pratchaya phutthathat kap mahayan tham
(Buddhadasa’s philosophy and Mahayana dhamma) (Bangkok: Khrongkan phoei phrae phon ngan
wichai Chulalongkon Mahawitthayalai, 1993).
39 Tavivat Puntarigvivat, “Bhikkhu Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism in dialogue with Latin
American liberation theology”, Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1994.
40 Pricha Changkhwanyun, Khwamkhit thang kanmuang khong Than Phutthathat Phikkhu
(Buddhadasa’s thought on politics) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Chulalongkon Mahawitthayalai, 1993).
41 Peerachat Saccavadit, “Citwaang as an adequate aim of education”, Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, 1979. I thank Dr. Louis Gabaude for kindly allowing me to access this thesis.
13
sociological studies on the extension of Buddhadasa’s influence42. What Suchira called
“Buddhadasa’s movement” was not an organisation, which has an administrative
headquarters and membership, but rather a “relatively loosely knit association”4"3. In
order to understand the movement she conducted a survey in 1988 and 1989 concerning
Buddhadasa’s followers’ social background and their experience with his teachings
(Chapter six). She included a case study of the activities of one of Buddhadasa’s
disciple monks (Chapter seven). Her fifty interviewees, consisting of ten monks and
forty lay people, led her to two main points. Many monk-followers of Buddhadasa came
from peasant families and engaged in community development in their village. Through
their activities, Suchira argued that Buddhadasa’s teachings were being disseminated to
the rural population in Thailand44. At the same time, more than half of the lay disciples
of Buddhadasa she interviewed had had university level education, and nearly half of
them were government officials. The sample included university lecturers, doctors,
judges, and teachers, who are usually considered to be of high or middle level
occupational status45.
Although Suchira’s research included in depth interviews with visitors to Suan
Mokkh and with important successors of Buddhadasa’s thought, such as the present
abbot of Suan Mokkh, as well as Prawase Wasi, Sulak Sivaraksa, and Chun Sirorot, the
significance of their connection with Buddhadasa remains unclear, because readers are
not well informed about their activities. Suchira chose the case of Phra Pongsak
Techadhammo at Wat Pha-laad in Chiang Mai, as an example of the activities run by
Buddhadasa’s disciple monks, who engage in forest conservation and rural development
based on Buddhist teachings46. However, Suchira only looked at it as a movement
connected with Buddhadasa because of the abbot’s time at Suan Mokkh, but she did not
locate the actual significance of Buddhadasa in the wider movement of Buddhist social
engagement, the case of Wat Pha-laad belonging to the ideological lineage of

42 Suchira Payulpitack, “Buddhadasa’s movement: an analysis of its origins, development, and

social impact”, Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Sozialwissenschaften,
Universität Bielefeld, 1991. I thank Dr. Louis Gabaude for kindly allowing me to access this thesis,
and introducing me to Dr. Suchira.
43 Suchira, “Buddhadasa’s Movement”, p. 179.
44 Suchira, “Buddhadasa’s Movement”, pp. 182 - 183.
4i Suchira, “Buddhadasa’s Movement”, pp. 188 - 190.
46 Chapter seven of her thesis is published as: Suchira Payulpitack, “Changing provinces of
concern” (cited above in footnote 18).
14
Buddhadasa is more meaningful in that context. I think that Buddhadasa has been
significant in various areas of ideological movements and activities, but the connection
of these movements with Buddhadasa’s movement have to be comprehended as very
loose. Therefore, Buddhadasa’s significance should be examined in each ideological
movement.
In contrast with the above-mentioned studies of Buddhadasa, I propose to study
the significance of Buddhadasa for Thai people in other ways. I felt that there seems to
be a discrepancy between the picture of Buddhadasa in “academic” or “objective”
studies, which portrayed him as a modem, rational, but deviant, unorthodox monk, and
his general image in Thailand as a highly respected, great thinker of Buddhism. As a
foreigner with a different experience in and background of Buddhism, I thought that my
understanding from reading his work might not coincide with that of many Thai people,
who have absorbed Buddhadasa as part of their own intellectual foundation.
In order to approach the image of Buddhadasa as Thai people have, I have
interviewed his Thai followers and opponents about his significance in their own lives,
and I have read their writings and Buddhadasa’s works in light of what they suggested.
For my informants, I selected among Buddhadasa-related people those who had
important roles either as successors of his dhamma propagation activities, or as his
opponents, or as leaders of certain social or ideological movements in Thailand. By
further tracing the details of their activities, and Buddhadasa’s significance in them, I
hoped that Buddhadasa’s position in the cultural and intellectual history of
twentieth-century Thailand would be clarified.
At the same time, through a study of Buddhadasa and intellectuals associated
with him, their context will also be examined. This context is what I call “the Buddhist
public sphere”. I think that discussions in the Buddhist public sphere, which include
both monks and lay people, can inform us about two aspects of history in Thailand. On
the one hand, they will suggest contemporary Thai people’s understandings of Buddhist
thought, which have scarcely been examined by scholars of Buddhist scriptures, by
anthropologists of popular Buddhist practices, or by historians of Thai Buddhism, who
have focused on the role of the Sangha. Also, I hope that the intellectual Buddhist
discussions explored in this study can provide more information for a history of
Buddhism in the twentieth century. Many of the discussions dealt with took place during
15
the period of international ideological conflict known as the Cold War, and they took
place in-between the Sangha modernisation reform in the early twentieth century and
the new Buddhist movements after the 1980s. On the other hand, the intellectual
activities in the Buddhist public sphere are a part of the intellectual history of Thailand.
In this study, the dialogue between Buddhism and Marxism is of particular interest.
This thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter I will introduce the situation of
Buddhism in the early twentieth century, the family background of Buddhadasa, and the
early development of his activities. Chapter II will trace the propagation of the dhamma
by Buddhadasa and his followers. His interpretation of the dhamma was disseminated
first by Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana (Buddhism), and then by his followers for
intellectuals in Bangkok, for people in Northern Thailand, who used to have a
distinctive Buddhist tradition, and for the masses mainly through the distribution of
dhamma booklets. Chapters III and IV will examine controversies that Buddhadasa
provoked in the Buddhist public sphere in the 1960s. Chapter III will deal with Thai
people’s discussions about the concept of emptiness or the empty mind (chit wang), by
which Buddhadasa was considered both innovative and unorthodox. Chapter IV will
explore the debates between Buddhadasa and Abhidhamma groups about whether
Abhidhamma, the traditional system of doctrines, was the word of the Buddha or not, as
well as the position of Buddhadasa and the Abhidhamma groups in the history of Thai
Buddhism. Chapters V and VI will discuss the ideological dialogues between Marxism
and Buddhism in Thailand. Chapter V will focus on the post-World War II period when
the Phibun government was relatively tolerant of Marxism, and when Buddhadasa and
Marxist intellectuals exchanged ideas. Chapter VI will look at the development of social
thought by Buddhist intellectuals from the beginning of and through to the end of the
period of the severest ideological conflicts, especially Buddhadasa’s proposal of
“Dhammic Socialism”, and attempts to apply it by so-called “engaged Buddhists”.
Lastly, the conclusion will overview the role of Buddhadasa and the Buddhist public
sphere in twentieth-century Thailand.

16
Chapter I Early development of Buddhadasa’s thoughts and activities

Suan Mokkhabalaram, or Buddhadasa’s place for dhamma practice, is located

outside the town of Chaiya, approximately six hundred kilometres south from
Thailand’s capital, Bangkok. In order to reach there from Bangkok, it takes overnight,
either by train or long distance bus, arriving in Chaiya in the early morning. Then,
changing to song thaeo1, which goes along the highway towards Surat Thani, it takes
about fifteen minutes to get to the main gate of Suan Mokkh. In the quiet forested
premises, there are open gathering places surrounded by rocks and trees for listening to
sermons, several buildings to communicate religious messages, and individual cabins
for monks and lay visitors. Those monks who seclude themselves from the clamorous
city and concentrate on religious practice in this type of temple are called forest monks,
and Buddhadasa has often been categorised amongst them.
However, Buddhadasa talking about himself said, “I became a forest monk
who worked on the Tipitaka. I assume that there are few such monks”2. Unlike the forest
monks in North-eastern Thailand, Buddhadasa was never isolated from communications
with the outside world. Buddhadasa was intellectually inspired by both domestic and
international movements of Buddhism and expressed his ideas to the world. The
development of his thought and activities was also a part of the change in Thai society.
Coincidentally, the establishment of Suan Mokkh was only a month before the 1932
Constitutional Revolution, which abolished the absolute monarchy and opened a way
for Thai politics to reflect the opinions of ordinary citizens. Buddhadasa’s independent
activity was an example of an individual Buddhist whose free exchange of opinions
could create a new understanding of the religion. The beginning of Buddhadasa’s
activities may be seen as ushering in a period when both the general and Buddhist
public spheres in Thailand developed rapidly.
In this chapter I will examine episodes and experiences influential for the early
development of Buddhadasa’s thought and activities. First, I will explore notable

1 Song thaeo is a small truck modified to carry passengers. It has two benches on each side of the
load-carrying tray for passengers to sit on. They are used for public transport over short distances.
2 Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, Lao wai mua wai sonthaya: atchiwaprawat khong than phutthathat
(Talking in the twilight years: an autobiography of Venerable Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Mulanithi
komon khimthong, 1988), p. 454.
17
Buddhist movements in the early twentieth century which prepared the way for
Buddhadasa’s intellectual concerns. Second, I will present his family background.
Ethnic Chinese in origin, it had become integrated into Thai Buddhist culture and its
members were pursuing progressive modern secular knowledge. Third, I will
comparatively examine the experiences of Buddhadasa in his youth. He was to spend
his life as an intellectual monk, while his younger brother, Thammathat, who had
advanced secular education, was to support Buddhadasa as a layman in their mutual
exploration of Buddhism. Fourth, I will depict the system of mutual support operating
between monk-led Suan Mokkh and lay-led Khana Thammathan. Lastly, I will explore
Buddhadasa’s communications with urban intellectuals and elder monks in the Sangha,
who inspired the development of his thought.

1. Buddhist movements in the early twentieth century

By the beginning of the twentieth century, changes in Thai Buddhism were

being promoted by movements in three domains: the Sangha; lay Buddhist critics and
associations; and those occurring within international Buddhist groupings. These trends
of change within Buddhism in Thailand were influential at the time Buddhadasa was
developing his thoughts and activities.

Reforms in the Sangha

First, reform in Thai Buddhism was seriously attempted within the Sangha, the
association of ordained monks, especially by those close to the monarchy. The monks’
lax discipline and lack of knowledge about Buddhist doctrine had been a serious
concern since the end of the reign of King Rama III (1824 - 51). The ecclesiastical Pali
examinations, which were held only irregularly during the first three reigns of the
Chakri dynasty, began to be promoted in order to advance expertise in Pali•3 . The reform
was led by the prince-monk, Mongkut and the distinctive monastic order he established
during the late 1830s, the Thammayut or the ‘Order adhering to the Dhamma’.
The role of Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Warorot, a son of King Mongkut, was

J Craig Reynolds, “Buddhist monkhood in nineteenth-century Thailand”, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell

18
very significant in expanding the reform of ecclesiastical education. This reform unified
all Buddhist monks within the boundaries of the state of Siam, and its impact went even
beyond the border into Laos and Cambodia. In particular, Wachirayan’s Pali grammar
book greatly facilitated the improvement of doctrinal understanding. Before his
textbook was written, monks in the Siamese and neighbouring regions used to study
Pali using a traditional grammar, munkatchai (Pali: Müla Kaccäyana). However, as
Buddhadasa recalled, the old textbook was too difficult, and after five or ten years of
A

study, many could still not understand anything, but became ‘crazy’ instead . The new
grammar book was also introduced as an epoch-making innovation in Laos by those
monks who had studied in Bangkok34*.
With the assistance of textbooks written by Wachirayan, the Mahamakut Royal
Academy, which was established in 1893, became a centre of ecclesiastical education
for monks and novices in the Thammayut Order. From this academic centre in Bangkok
monastic education in Buddhist doctrine expanded to the provinces through the basic
doctorical textbooks and the journal, Thammachaksu (Eye of the dhamma). In 1894 this
journal started to publish parts of the Pali scriptures translated into Thai, as well as
Wachirayan’s and other famous monks’ sermons6. Through these textbooks and the
journal, Thai Buddhists were able to acquire a sound scriptural basis in Buddhism,
which until then had been vague in local daily practice.
Scriptural knowledge became more accessible for monks and novices in the
provinces by the introduction of the nak tham ecclesiastical examination. The
examination was originally established to provide an objective criteria to identify
‘novices who know the dhamma’, who were to be exempted from military conscription,
(along with monks), as determined by the Royal Edict on Military Conscription in
19057. With some amendments made by later Pali scholars to Wachirayan’s textbooks,

University, 1973, pp. 155 - 161.

4 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 59.
3 Rong Prathan Phong Samaloek, vice-president of the Laotian Fellowship of Buddhists; this
position is equivalent to the vice-Supreme Patriarch in the Thai Sangha, and in Laos under the
socialist regime the Laotian Fellowship of Buddhists is equivalent to the Sangha in Thailand,
interview, Vientiane, 29 April 2000.
6 Stephen Zack, “Buddhist education under Prince Wachirayan Warorot”, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University, 1977, p. 105.
Yoneo Ishii, Sangha, state, and society: Thai Buddhism in history (Honolulu: The University of
Hawaii Press, 1986), pp. 88 -91; Zack, “Buddhist Education...”, p. 169.
19
which provided the syllabus, the nak tham examinations developed into the third,
second and first grades, in 1912, 1917, and 1921 respectively8. The examination became
far more popular than was envisaged in its original purpose, not only among monks and
novices, but also among lay Buddhists who wanted to learn the dhamma, the contents of
which had been unfamiliar to them but which had always been respected as sacred. In
1929 a similar ecclesiastical examination for lay Buddhists was introduced. It was
called thammasuksa and replaced the questions on the bhikkhu’s 227 vinaya rules with
questions on the eight lay precepts. This also became very popular. In order to promote
Buddhist education for monks and novices, the Mahamakut Royal Academy spent an
annual budget of ten thousand baht to provide local teacher monks who taught nak tham
with nithayaphat, or monastic salary for monks with official titles and duties9.
As a result, candidates for the nak tham examinations grew from 44,167 in
1931, to 50,922 in 1932, and 54,397 in 193310; and those for the thammasuksa increased
to 3,512 in 1931, 4,779 in 1932, and 6,525 in 1933. The applicants expanded into every
province in Siam as well as to Phnom Penh in Cambodia. Since the nak tham
examinations began, the number of applicants increased in number every year for
twenty years ranging from an increase of a few hundred to an increase of several
thousand. Phra Maha Thongsup Charuwanno, who provided these statistics and who
was then the director of the textbook bureau at the Mahamakut Royal Academy,
observed that these numbers included a few novices who were attempting to escape
from military service, but that most of the applicants genuinely wanted to study the
dhamman . Sanya Dhammasakdi, who was ordained in 1927, was deeply impressed by
Nawakowat (one of the textbooks written by Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Warorot for
the third grade nak tham), and called it pramuan chiwit (a compendium, or guidelines,

8 Phra Maha Thongsup, “Pathakatha ruang nak tham” (A public lecture on nak tham),
Thammachaksu, vol. 20 No. 3 (December 1934), pp. 259 - 274. This article was originally broadcast
on radio on 15 June 1934.
9 Phra Maha Thongsup, “Pathakatha nak tham”, pp. 265 - 266.
10 In 1933, 20,397 passed the examinations, 21,111 failed, and 12,871 withdrew from sitting the
examinations (Phra Maha Thongsup, “Pathakatha nak tham”, p. 272). According to the statistics that
Ishii cited, by 1967 the nak tham candidates had grown to 144,765, among whom 35,744 passed the
examinations (Ishii, Sangha, state, and society, p. 96).
11 Phra Maha Thongsup added that included in these figures were some lay people who were to be
teachers to teach Buddhism at elementary school. He said that these people should also be assisted
(Phra Maha Thongsup, “Pathakatha nak tham”, p. 273).
20
 19
for life) Such popular enthusiasm for the study of basic Buddhist doctrines was an
important feature of the early decades of the twentieth century, and Buddhadasa was
also enthusiastic about the studying of nak tham textbooks.

Activities of lav Buddhist intellectuals

The second development of Buddhism in the early twentieth century was the
vigorous involvement of lay Buddhist intellectuals in discussions of the dhamma. Since
the late nineteenth century, there had been some non-royal intellectuals who, through
their publications, expressed opinions, criticism and ideas for the reform of Thai society,
politics and religion. K. S. R. Kulaplj (1834 - 1913), Thianwan or T. W. S. Wannapho14
(1842 - 1915), and Narin Phasit15 (1874 - 1950) were famous examples of these
intellectuals whose background was that of well-to-do commoners. As a basis for the
presentations of their opinions, these people had experience working for foreign and
local trading firms, w’hich provided them with a good income. Through their work, they
acquired advanced knowledge of the languages, societies, histories and cultures of
overseas countries. In addition their early experiences of ordination as novices and
monks had provided them with their basic education.
Their activities included criticism of and attempts to reform the contemporary
situation of Buddhism in Thailand. In 1900 K. S. R. Kulap and his two sons produced a
weekly journal in order “to provide ‘alms of knowledge’ to monks and poor people”16.
Thianwan, whose sermons were very popular among palace residents while he was a
young monk for five years, gave his critical analysis of Buddhist practice in his journal,
Thulawiphak phochanakit11. Buddhadasa remarked that Thianwan was, like Prince

12 Suksanti Chirachariyawet (ed.), 7 rop achan sanya (Seventh twelve-year cycle [i.e., eighty-four
years] of Achan Sanya) (Bangkok: Mulanithi nitthisat, Mahawitthayalai thammasat, 1991), p. 137.
lj About K. S. R. Kulap, see Craig Reynolds, “The case of K. S. R. Kulap: a challenge to royal
historical writing in late nineteenth century Thailand”, The journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 61 Part
2 (July 1973), pp. 6 3 -9 0 .
14 About Thianwan, see Chai’anan Samutwanit (ed.), Sanniphon khong thianwan (Writings of
Thianwan) (Bangkok: Ongkan Naksuksa Mahawitthayalai Ramkhamhaeng, 1974); Walter F. Vella,
“Thianwan of Siam: a man who fought giants”, Ronald D. Renard (ed.), Anuson Walter Vella
(Chiang Mai: Walter F. Vella Fund, Phayap University, 1986), pp. 7 8 -9 1 .
15 About Narin Phasit, see Sakdina Chatrakun na Ayutthaya, Chiwit, naewkhit lae kantosu khong
“narin klung” ru narin phasit: khon khwang lok (Life, thought and struggle of “Narin Klung” or
Narin Phasit: a person who blocked the world) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Matichon, 1993).
16 Reynolds, “The Case of K. S. R. Kulap...”, p. 75.
1 Vella translated the title of the journal as “The equal share journal”, or “Fair deal journal” (Vella,
21
Patriarch Wachirayan Warort, an intellectual who interpreted the dhamma in a
contemporary way in the late nineteenth century, and his sati pahhä or wisdom should
have been expanded among some groups of monks. However, Buddhadasa continued,
Thianwan had to shock monks by his words, because monks had not reached the level
of Thianwan . Narin Phasit attempted a more explicit reform movement of Buddhism
along with his political proposals and campaigns. In 1912 Narin established the
Association of Buddhists (.Phutthaborisat Samakhom), and published a journal, Sara
tham (Essential dhamma), in which he severely criticised the inappropriate behaviour of
monks. Narin sought a shared place for the overcoming of suffering without excluding
any Buddhists, ordained or non-ordained, male or female, and he also sought to restore
the bhikkhuni ordination for Buddhist women, which had become extinct in the history of
Theraväda Buddhism19. These progressive movements and speeches were led by lay
Buddhist intellectuals who did not depend on the authority of the Sangha or on
individual monks, because most monks did not wish to jeopardise their comfortable
living or take up rigorous ascetic practice.
Although the good will and higher purposes of these lay intellectuals gained
certain support, even from a few monks, their outspokenness against the existing
religious order met with resistance. No matter how short the lives of these movements
by non-elite lay intellectuals, dissatisfaction with the current religious order and a
demand for true Buddhism continued to exist in Thai society into the early twentieth
century. The number of less confronting lay Buddhists from elite circles who wanted to
express Buddhism, which was not always apparent in daily custom, continued to grow.
Buddhadasa indicated four influential intellectuals20: No. Mo. So., Khru Thep (also
known as Chao Phraya Thammasakmontri), Prince Wan Waithayakon, and Luang
Wichit Wathakan as using their acumen. They all presented their view in depth from a

“Thianwan of Siam”, p, 81). One of Thianwan’s articles on Buddhism, “Rok khong sasana” (Illness
of religion), was selected from Tulawiphak phochanakit (Vol. 4 No. 147, 16 April 1904) and
reprinted in Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana (Buddhism) Vol. 20 (1952), pp. 23 -26. It
criticised as ‘illness of religion’ any world-renunciates, either bhikkhu, sämanera, ta then (old ascetics),
yai chi (old female ascetics), upäsaka (lay men), or upäsikä (lay women), who did not understand the
purpose of religion, but sought instead to benefit their social status as renunciates. Thianwan
indicated that the medicine for such illness is in Buddhism.
18 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 113.
19 Sakdina, Chiwit, naewkhit lae kantosu..., pp. 10 - 13; 32 - 45.
20 Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., pp. 1 1 4 - 115.
22
critical point of view. Later on, the Buddhist Association of Thailand (established as
Phuttha-tham samakhon in February 1934, but a few years later renamed Phuttha
samakhom haeng prathet thai) and The Young Buddhist Association (Yuwaphutthika
samakhom, established in January 1949) became significant meeting places for lay
Buddhists seeking Buddhist teachings from both ordained and lay teachers. Buddhadasa
was to become one of those teachers who responded to this new demand on the
Buddhist establishment, which was unprecedented in the daily practice of lay Buddhist
life.

International Buddhist movements

The third important trend in the background of Buddhadasa was the
international Buddhist movements, especially the activities of the Maha Bodhi Society.
The Maha Bodhi Society was led by Anagarika Dharmapala21 (1864 - 1933) from Sri
Lanka, and it stimulated remarkable numbers of educated Westerners to convert to and
study Buddhism. A significant forerunner of the Maha Bodhi Society was the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875 in New York by the American
Colonel H. S. Olcott (1832 - 1907) and the Russian Madame Blavatsky (1831 - 1907).
In 1880, on their arrival in Sri Lanka, which was then under British colonial rule, they
founded the Buddhist Theosophical Society, and promoted Buddhist counterparts of
holidays, the catechism, and Buddhist schools, as the Christian missionaries had been
doing. Anagarika Dharmapala worked with the Theosophists from 1884 until the early
1900s22. In 1891, Dharmapala established the Maha Bodhi Society in Calcutta in order
to establish Buddhist control of the place of the Buddha’s enlightenment in India. Their
activities to gain support for their aims raised the awareness of Buddhist identity in
Asian countries, and built up an international network of Buddhists, comprised of both
Asian and Western converts.
By the early twentieth century, inspired by the activities of the Maha Bodhi

21 About his life and the works of Dharmapala, see Ananda Guruge (ed.), Return to righteousness: a
collection o f speeches, essays and letters o f Anagarika Dharmapala (Ceylon: Government Press,
1965).
Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism transformed: religious change in Sri
Lanka (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 204 - 206; Balkrishna Govind Gokhale,
“Anagarika Dharmapala: toward modernity through tradition in Ceylon”, Contributions to Asian
Studies, Vol. 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), pp. 30 - 39.
23
Society, there were a number of Buddhist journals published in English and distributed
all over the world. Among the English journals, those which reached Buddhadasa and
his brother in a southern province of Thailand included: The Maha Bodhi, published
in India from January 1892 onwards; Buddhist annual of Ceylon published in Sri Lanka
from 1920; The British Buddhist published by the British Maha Bodhi Society in
England from 1926 onwards; and The young East published by the International
Buddhist Society in Japan from 192524. The articles in these journals had at least two
characteristics. First, there were many stories and reports on Westerners’ conversion to
Buddhism, and on activities of Buddhist associations and groups in Europe, America,
and Asian countries. Second, the Western and Asian authors of the journal articles often
discussed major concepts in Buddhism, such as nibbäna, anattä and the four noble truths,
as well as the histories of Buddhism in different local traditions. These Buddhist topics
had to be explained philosophically and historically for the new converts who had a
high level of education. Those philosophical concepts and the teachings of other
traditions of Buddhism were not necessarily familiar to the Buddhists in Asia. Those
Asian intellectuals who could read and understand these English journals were
intellectually driven to inquire more and more into the philosophy and history of their
own religion, to which educated Westerners converted, abandoning their native
Christianity.
In fact, Thai intellectuals especially should have felt pride and a degree of
responsibility, because their country, Siam, was given an honourable position in the
international Buddhist movement in the early twentieth century. In the British Maha
Bodhi Society“ , where Anagarika Dharmapala and Mrs. Mary Foster were the Patrons,

23 Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., pp. 126 - 127.

24 The volumes of these journals that I looked through were in the collections in the main library
and the subsidiary library of the Faculty of Arts, the University of Kyoto. The following analyses of
articles in these journals are based on the volumes that I looked at. They included: The Maha Bodhi
Vol. 39 No. 1 (January 1931) - Vol. 41 No. 12 (December 1933); Buddhist annual o f Ceylon Vol. 1
No. 1 (1920) - Vol. 4 No. 2 (1932); The British Buddhist Vol. 4 No. 1 (October 1929) - Vol. 8
Conference and Farewell Number (1934); and The young East Vol. 1 No. 3 (August 1925) - Vol. 10
No. 2 (1942).
23 The British Maha Bodhi Society was established with the object of “the extension of the
knowledge of the tenets of Buddhism, the establishment of a Vihara in London and the promotion of
the cause of Buddhism in the West” (The British Buddhist, Vol. 4 No. 1 (October 1929),
advertisement page for the British Maha Bodhi Society).
24
the Siamese Ministers in London, Prince Wan Waithayakon26 and Prince Damras
Damrong Devakula27 after him, were the Presidents of the Society. After the deaths of
Mrs. Foster in 1931 and of Dharmapala in April 1933, the position of the Society’s
Patron was passed on to the then king of Siam, or King Prajadhipok28. Why was the
honorary position in the international Buddhist society, that originated in Sri Lanka and
India, conferred on Siamese royalty? An article introducing Prince Wan related the
prestigious position of Siam as follows:
Siam alone stands to-day as an ideal Buddhist State ruled by an enlightened
Buddhist King whose government represents a unique combination of modem
democratic methods with the principles of Rajadharma of bygone times29.

Among the colonised Asian Buddhist countries, Siam was the only country that
maintained independence and rule by a Buddhist monarchy.
After it was demanded that King Prajadhipok accept the constitution and
democratic government by the People’s Party in June 1932, the Maha Bodhi Society in
Calcutta sent a telegram to congratulate the King of Siam, w'ho had accepted the
demands “in a statesmanlike manner” . The new constitution of Siam was fully
published in the September 1932 issue of the journal, The Maha Bodhi31. The change in
the Siamese regime to democracy under a Buddhist constitutional monarchy was
viewed as an ideal model for Buddhists who sought independence from colonial rule.
Although Siam was prestigious in the international community of Buddhist Asia, King
Prajadhipok could not have been very happy to accept the congratulatory message for

26 Prince Wan was the President of the British Maha Bodhi Society from July 1929 until October
1930. From 1926 his appointment was as His Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary to Great Britain. From 1928 he was also Siam’s Permanent Delegate to the League of
Nations and Siamese Minister in London. Prince Wan resigned from the Society’s Presidency
because of returning to Siam in October 1930 (The Editor, “Democratic Prince”, The British
Buddhist, Vol. 4 No. 8-9 (May-June 1930); “Yet another departure”, The British Buddhist, Vol. 5 No.
1 (October 1930), p. 194). In The British Buddhist, the name of Prince Wan is romanised as
‘Vamvaidya’, but his name is more commonly written as ‘Wan Waithayakon’.
27 Prince Damras was President of the Society after 1932. In 1929 he had been appointed as His
Siamese Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James and
Permanent Representative to the League of Nations, in addition to being Siamese Minister in
London (The British Buddhist, Vol. 6 No. 11 (August 1933)).
2S The British Buddhist, Vol. 7 No. 11 (August 1933), advertisement for the British Maha Bodhi
Society.
29 The Editor, “Democratic Prince”.
30 “Democratic Siam”, The Maha-Bodhi, Vol. 40 No. 8 (August 1932), pp. 390 - 391. There was a
reply from Chao Phya Mahadhasa, Principal Private Secretary of King Prajadhipok as well.
31 “New Siamese Constitution: highest power belongs to people”, The Maha-Bodhi, Vol. 40 No. 9
(September 1932), pp. 415 - 422.
25
the change. The position of Patron of the British Maha Bodhi Society suddenly became
vacant in January-March 1934j2. In fact, in January 1934 King Prajadhipok left Siam
for dental work and eye surgery in Europe in despair at the dictatorial rule of the
People’s Party. Later in March 1935, the King abdicated the throne, and he died in May
1941.
Despite the fate of King Prajadhipok, Thai Buddhist intellectuals who read
those English journals felt a sense of pride in the Buddhism of their home country that
had attracted educated Westemersj3. Because of a sense of responsibility deriving from
this honour, together with the inspiring discussions of Buddhist philosophy in the
international journals, Thai intellectuals determined to work for Buddhism in Thailand
in order to present a good model for foreign Buddhists. The activity of Buddhadasa and
his brother was also inspired by these international Buddhist movements44.
Buddhism in Thailand was gradually shifting away from local conventional
practice. Buddhist education was systematised and spread among Thai people by the
Sangha’s pedagogical efforts. However, lay intellectuals were not satisfied with the
existing state of monks’ daily behaviour and ritualistic, incomprehensible sermons in
Pali. In journals lay intellectuals expressed their own critical insights into the world and
life, and some even examined alternatives for reform. International Buddhist
movements gave more incentive to the study of doctrine and to the achievement of ideal
Buddhism so that Thailand could contribute to the world. Buddhadasa’s own thinking
was developed in the wake of such transitions in Buddhism in the early twentieth
century.

j2 The British Buddhist, Vol. 8 No. 2 (January-March 1934).

For example, when a Thai Buddhist journal, Thammachaksu, translated the news of some
Buddhist mission and converts in Europe from the Maha Bodhi Journal, the editor of Thammachaksu
wrote, “I hope that these news will bring a sense of pride to Buddhists everywhere” (“Thalaengkan
buang ton” (Announcement in the beginning), Thammachaksu, Vol. 23 No. 4 (January 2480/1937)).
j4 In Buddhadasa’s journal, they wrote, “These days, some foreigners who are philosophers having
high knowledge, study Buddhism and try to practice it for overcoming suffering by expecting the
fruit of lokuttara happiness, because overcoming suffering is not possible in modem academic studies,
such as science. However, they want to see a model of practice, or someone who has already done
the practice. How should we, who are placed in the position of the owners of Buddhism in the
present time, advise and help them, if we do not have any bhikkhu and samanera who does good and
right practice, at an authentic level {suppatipanno), as examples to show?” “Thalaengkan khong khana
thammathan” (An announcement from the Khana Thammathan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 1 (May
1933), p. 8.

26
2. Buddhadasa’s family background

Chaiya, where Buddhadasa was born and spent his ascetic life, was an old
historical city located at the west end of the projection into the Gulf of Thailand in the
middle of the Malay peninsular. Mahäyäna Buddhist ruins were found in this area, and
Chaiya is suspected as being one of the centres of the Sri Vijaya Empire from the eighth
to the thirteenth century. Situated on the coast of the Malay peninsular, people from
different ethnic and religious origins, including Chinese and Muslims, settled in this
region. After the fall of the Sri Vijaya Empire, Muang Chaiya was a base of Ayutthaya
instead of Nakhon Si Thammarat, to which the adjacent area belonged^.
Although Chaiya is known for Mahayäna ruins, Theravada Buddhism had
penetrated the area. When King Vajiravudh visited this area in 1915-16, he was
impressed by the elegant manner of the people who upheld site dhamma (morality) and
practised Buddhism. He gave a nev/ name to the Monthon Chaiya, “Monthon Surat
Thani” (The state of elegant people)36.
Most of the people in Chaiya were engaged in rice growing, and their high
quality rice was traded at a good price in Bangkok, other cities in Southern Thailand
and in Malaysia . Chinese dwelt in the city marketplace for commerce, and over the
generations new migrants kept coming from China to be assimilated by marrying local
Thais and local Chinese descendants . Some Muslim groups also migrated to Chaiya in
39
the early Rattanakosin period .

Phuwa ratchakan changwat lae khana kromkan changwat surat thani (Provincial Governor and
Administrative Council of Surat Thani) (ed.), Changwat surat thani - kan chalong 25
phutthasattawat (Surat Thani province - Celebration for the 25th Buddhist century) (Bangkok,
1957), p. 12.
36 Changwat surat thani - kan chalong 25 phutthasattawat, p. 14.
37 Prathum Chumphenphan (ed.), Chaiya - surat thani (Bangkok: Krung sayam kanphim, 1972,
1976), pp. 4 - 5 .
38 For example, Buddhadasa’s grandfather (father’s father), Kho Yiko (HlF—■
i f? ), was from China,
and married a local third generation Chinese woman. Those Chinese who married Thais became
assimilated, especially when they accepted Theravada Buddhist culture, including ordination and
education at temples, as seen in the examples of Buddhadasa’s father and brother. When local
Chinese married newer migrants from China, they resumed Chinese ancestor worship at home, as in
the case of Buddhadasa’s cousin, Damri Phanit (a son of Buddhadasa’s father’s brother, A Siang)
(Damri Phanit, interview, Chumphon, 6 March 1999). According to Buddhadasa, there were many
Chinese descendants in the area, and on some of the Chinese was conferred the title, Phraya (Phra
Pracha,Lao w a i..., pp. 1 4 - 1 5 ) .
j9 Prathum, Chaiya - surat thani, pp. 4 - 5.
27
 Phumriang, which is located six kilometres east from the present district office

of Chaiya and only a kilometre from the seashore, was a city inhabited by Chinese

traders, Thai Buddhist artisans weaving hats with bai lan, and the so-called white

Muslim community engaged in fishing and famous for silk weaving40. Phumriang

village used to be the centre of Muang Chaiya, and transport to and communication with

the nation’s capital, Bangkok, was not too difficult41. This was where Buddhadasa was

bom.

Buddhadasa’s father, Siang Phanit (1873? - 1922), belonging to the second

generation of Chinese migrants bom in Phumriang. He dealt with rice, salt, and dried

foods at his local shop, and was also a carpenter able to build a ship. Buddhadasa’s

mother, Khluan (1875 - 1948), was an ethnic Thai from Amphoe Tha Chang.

Buddhadasa was bom in 1906 as the first child of the family, and named Nguam. He

had a younger brother, Yikoei42 (who later named himself Thammathat (1909 - 2000)),

and a younger sister, Kimsoi (1912? - ?).

Buddhadasa’s father’s family4^ originated in China, but had been assimilated

into Thai culture by marrying into local families and accepting Thai Buddhist culture.

Buddhadasa’s grandfather, Kho Yiko (I^ H -lr? 44), was bom in Taechew and used to live

in Hokkien45. He came to Thailand as an artisan who made liquor by invitation for a

concession (sanpathan) brewer in Chaiya. When King Rama VI ordered that all the

Thai population have a family name, he was given the Thai family name, Phanit, which

40 Prathum, Chaiya - surat thani, pp. 7 3 - 7 5 .

41 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 45 - 46, 697. In 1935 the regional centre moved from Phumriang to
the Talat Chaiya area when the railway station was built and the amphoe office moved to be near the
railway (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 697).
42 According to Thammathat, his name, Yikoei, is a Chinese name, which means ‘the second
chicken’ (— H ). Thammathat did not learn Chinese from his father, but he studied it from textbooks
by himself after he quit Chulalongkom University and returned home in order to run the family
business in place of Buddhadasa, who had been ordained at the age of twenty. Thammathat believed
that the names, Nguam and Kimsoi, were both Chinese, but he was not sure what those names meant.
He also considered himself as almost Chinese (Thammathat Phanit, interview, Chaiya, 4 March
1999).
4j The following family history is based on the interview with Damri Phanit (1916 - ) , the eldest son
of A Siang.
44 I am grateful for this suggestion of Chinese characters by Yang Tsung-Rong.
45 Buddhadasa and Thammathat, who lost their father in their youth, believed that their grandfather
was from Hokkien (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 5; Thammathat Phanit, interview with author, Chaiya,
4 March 1999.). However, according to Damri Phanit, a cousin of theirs and a son of A Siang, their
grandfather was actually born in Taechew, but he emphasised his background in Hokkien in order to
marry Somchin, whose family originated in Hokkien.
28
 i
\

C
Phrom K im soi Hemakun fam ily

1 £

^
T3
c/ j
T han gsu s rich business fam ily

g "

-
li
“S 5 X

Cs
O'
in Sural Thani)

117

3
The family of Buddhadasa.

OJ
means ‘trading’, because his was the only family doing business in the region46. Yiko
married a third generation Chinese descendant, Somchin, and had three sons: Siang or
Buddhadasa’s father, A Siang4/ (1879? - 1956), and An (? - ?). Somchin’s family
seemed to have been already assimilated into local Thai culture, as her two cousins
remained ordained as Theravada Buddhist monks throughout their lives. One of them,
Luang Pho U, was the abbot of Wat Mai Phumriang, and both Buddhadasa’s father and
uncle were ordained temporarily as novices.
Yiko died when Siang was thirteen and A Siang was seven, so the brothers
were not able to learn Chinese from their father. Siang, who was skilled, especially at
shipbuilding, could earn a good income to support himself, in addition to his retail
business of rice and dry goods. While the youngest brother, An, was short-lived, the
second brother, A Siang, was very influential for Buddhadasa and Thammathat. A Siang
was ordained as a novice from the age of seven until he was twenty, and was then
ordained as a monk until he wras thirty-two. He then became the manager of a trading
ship between Bangkok and Chumphon. A Siang was the abbot of Wat Mai Phumriang
for four years, and he studied in Bangkok for the last three years of his ordination in
1909 - 1911. While in Bangkok, A Siang was in the position of phra baidika**, and a

46 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 5.

4' Buddhadasa’s father’s name, Siang, and his uncle’s name, Siang, is different in script and tone in
Thai, but it cannot be romanised in English. Buddhadasa’s father’s name is written in Thai, so.-so
and mai-tho, and pronounced with the high tone; while his uncle’s name is written so.-sua and
mai-tho, and pronounced with the falling tone. In this chapter, I will call Buddhadasa’s father ‘Siang’,
and his uncle ‘A Siang’, which means ‘Uncle Siang’, as Buddhadasa and Thammathat called him.
48 Phra baidika is the lowest of the thananukrom (honorary positions) that elder monks at the level
of phra rachakhana (those monks on whom have been conferred ecclesiastical titles above the level
of phra khru) can appoint. The higher the ecclesiastical title conferred, the more thananukrom
monks a monk can appoint. For example, in 1912 when on future Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan
(Charoen Yanawaro; 1872 - 1951)) was conferred the ecclesiastical title, Phra Ratchamuni, he was
allowed to appoint three thananukrom monks: phra khru palat, phra khru samu, and phra khru
baidika. In 1926 when the title of Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan at the level of somdet rachakhana
was conferred, he was allowed to appoint ten thananukrom monks: phra khru plat samphiphatthana
silachan yanawimon sakon khanisason utdon sangkhanayok pidok thamma rakkhit, phra khru
winaithon, phra khru thammathon, phra khru methangkon phra khru khu suat,phra khru warawong
phra khru khu suat,phra khru thammarat, phra khru thammaruchi, phra khru sangkhawichan, phra
khru samu, and phra khru baidika. In the rank of thananukrom, baidika is the lowest. See the
headings, “thananukrom”, “baidika”, and “rachakhana” in Photchananukrom chabap Ratchabandit
Sathan Pho. So. 2525 (A Thai dictionary: the Royal Academy 1982 edition). Also see “Prawat chao
phra khun somdet phra phutthakhosachan yanawara thera” (A history of Somdet Phra
Phutthakhosachan), Chao phra khun somdet phra phutthakhosachan yanawara thera, Phra mongkhon
wisesakatha [a commemoration book distributed by his disciples at his cremation] (1952), pp. (1) -
(28).
30
secretary of the abbot of his temple, Wat Pathumkhongkha49, which indicates that his
capability was recognised by his elders.
This background of Buddhadasa’s father’s family suggests that their Chinese
origin inclined them to engage in commerce, but in a cultural and intellectual sense,
Buddhadasa’s father’s generation had already taken to Thai Buddhism rather than
keeping Chinese customs30. Buddhism played a very important role for Chinese
migrants in Thailand as a vehicle for assimilation into Thai culture. Other famous
monks, such as Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu51 and Suchiwo Bhikkhu (who later disrobed and
took the name Suchip Punyanuphap) ", have similar Chinese backgrounds.
On the other hand, Buddhadasa’s mother, Khluan, was completely ethnic Thai,
and a daughter of Khun Sitthisan (Leng), who was the first Nai Amphoe of Amphoe
Kanchanadit53, in the area of old Muang Chaiya. In other words, Buddhadasa’s mother
was from a local influential family. According to Thammathat and his eldest son, Siri
Phanit54, their shop in Chaiya named Ran chaiya phanit (Chaiya Trading Shop of the
Phanit Family) was owned by Buddhadasa’s mother, and she had sufficient assets to
lend money to people in town, although she did not own much land. She had a cousin,
Kim’nguan, or Na Nguan (auntie Nguan for Buddhadasa and Thammathat), who
became one of the wives of Phraya Patinanphumirak, the ninth president of the Chinese

49 Wat Pathumkhongkha was the temple where Buddhadasa stayed when he studied Pali on A
Siang’s advice. A Siang took a novice when he went to study in Bangkok. The novice, Maha Klan or
later Phra Khru Chayaphiwat, was to become Buddhadasa’s teacher of Pali (Damri Phanit,
interview). A Siang’s connections and advice were important for the path of the young monk,
Buddhadasa.
30 Buddhadasa’s father did not speak Chinese except for a few words, but he studied Thai at the
temple when he was a temple boy. In Buddhadasa’s house, his father celebrated Chinese New Year
(trut chin) and the autumn Chinese festival (sat chin), but the Chinese holidays were not celebrated
after his father died when Buddhadasa was sixteen. His uncle, A Siang, never performed Chinese
ancestor worship at home. According to Damri, A Siang’s son, A Siang could not speak Chinese, but
did speak some English for his business, and read Pali fluently because of his long monastic
education. A Siang was even capable of writing bailan. Both Buddhadasa’s father and uncle were
talented in making Thai poems (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p.15, 43; Damri, interview). These facts
indicate that Thai cultural elements were stronger than the influence of Chinese culture even in
Buddhadasa’s father’s generation.
31 Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, interview, Chonburi, 29 April 1999.
52 Suchip Punyanuphap, interview, Bangkok, 17 August 1998.
Thammathat, interview. According to Buddhadasa in his interview with Phra Pracha, his mother
was bom in Tha Chang, another amphoe in the Chaiya region, and her mother and grandparents were
from Tha Chang (Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 6). However, Thammathat said that their mother’s
father worked as the first Nai Amphoe Kanchanadit, and then the family moved to Amphoe Tha
Chang.
34 Thammathat, interview; Siri Phanit, interview, Chaiya, 4 March 1999.
31
Chamber of Commerce and father of Khun Setthaphakdi, an important prosperous
Chinese merchant from the Surat Thani region10. Although Buddhadasa’s mother was
never extravagant, but rather thrifty in nature, their family fortune assisted the
non-profit religious propagation activities of Buddhadasa and Thammathat.
In Chaiya, Buddhadasa’s family was quite wealthy and well-respected, (in Thai,
thana di), though not the wealthiest in the town of Phumriang36. Their local status is
suggested by the marriage partners of Thammathat and the youngest sister, Kimsoi, who
were both from local influential families. Thammathat’s wife was a granddaughter of
the Siyaphai family, the old Chao Muang Chaiya. Kimsoi married into the Hemakun
family, which is a very rich merchant family in Surat Thani. Just as the Phanit family, in
the early twentieth century it was also amongst the provincial celebrities, or upper
middle commoners, who produced persons with high intellectual motives seeking to
acquire knowledge through the print media and to express their ideas by their own
writings.
Another characteristic of some members of Buddhadasa’s family was their
delight in seeking new knowledge37. His influential former monk uncle, A Siang, had
Buddhism as his intellectual foundation. He was even able to read palm leaf writings in
Pali fluently, and even able to write them. A Siang always found new books in Bangkok,
including the journals of Thianwan and K. S. R. Kulap to which he subscribed, and he
sent them to his elder brother, Buddhadasa’s father. Through those collections of his
father and uncle, Buddhadasa also had a chance to read the works of these distinctive
CO

intellectuals when A Siang succeeded to his father’s business after his father’s death .
After disrobing, he developed his concerns in the secular world on top of his Buddhist

^ Eiji Murashima, Kanmuang chin sayam (Politics of the Chinese in Siam) (Bangkok: Sathaban
esia suksa, Chulalongkon mahawitthayalai, 1996), p. 39.
36 Although Buddhadasa said that his family did not have the same status or wealth as Chao Muang
or Chinese merchants (Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 6), Thammathat and other members of Phanit
Family agreed that they were in the higher level, better off than ordinary local farmers or shop
owners (Thammathat, interview; Siri, interview; Metta Phanit, the youngest son of Thammathat,
interview, Chaiya, 4 March 1999).
57 Some of the members of the Phanit family did well in their education. For example, among the
five children of Thammathat, one studied abroad in Britain and the United States, two graduated
from Chulalongkom University, the other two also graduated from college and university. In A
Siang’s family, one of the most accomplished children is Dr. Wichan Phanit, or a grandson of A
Siang and the eldest son of Damri, who is currently the Director of the Research Funding Council
(phu amnuaikan samnakngan kongthun sanap sanun kanwichai).
38 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 16, 43.
32
education. A Siang became a clerk of a company that dealt with swallow nests, one of
the special products of Southern Thailand. He married a daughter of his company
manager, who trusted him and recognised his ability, and he settled in Chumphon. The
eldest son of A Siang remembers that A Siang had a good collection of books at home,
including books on Buddhism, law, and medicine, some of which were printed by Dr.
Bradley, who first introduced the printing press into Thailand39. A Siang should be
understood as a provincial businessman of Chinese descent, and as an intellectual with
his Buddhist cultivation and new secular knowledge. An uncle such as A Siang was the
most influential intellectual for the brothers, Buddhadasa and Thammathat, who lost
their father at the age of sixteen and thirteen respectively.
The brothers, Buddhadasa and Thammathat, had the same personality trait as
their uncle, seeking after new knowledge. Their enthusiasm for intellectual inquiry and
excitement in discussion were the very sources of so many of their later activities in
Buddhism. Based on their rather advanced educational careers, compared to the
standard of their contemporaries, they investigated the specialised areas of Buddhism.
One thing that Buddhadasa inherited from his father and uncle more than
Thammathat was the ability to write Thai poems60. This capability contributed to the
popularity of his preaching. Intellectuality had to be supported by a good rhetorical
medium in order to be disseminated more widely. Buddhadasa’s works became far more
popular than Thammathat’s, not only because of his ordained status, but also because of
his powers of expression.

3. The lives of Buddhadasa and Thammathat up to the establishment of Suan Mokkh

Although Buddhadasa61 became more famous and respected as a monk, the

development of his thoughts and activities was always supported by the lay intellectual
partnership of his brother, Thammathat . They both became interested in Buddhism

Damri, interview.
60 Arun Wetchasuan, interview, Bangkok, 2 March 1999.
61 Many books on Buddhadasa’s life have been published, but I refer to Phra Pracha, Lao wai mua
wai sonthaya. Since Buddhadasa himself talked about his experiences and opinions in it, Lao wai...
is in all likelihood the most reliable work to be examined for Buddhadasa’s life and works.
62 For Thammathat’s life, I have referred mainly to three sources: interview with Thammathat;
“Song si phra phutthasasana, song phu-sathapana mokkhaphalaram - khana thammathan” (Two
33
through separate, but similar, channels and occasions.
The age difference of Buddhadasa (1906 - 1993) and Thammathat (1909 -
2000) was two years by the Thai calendar63, but in terms of education, Thammathat
went to school only a year ahead of his elder brother, Buddhadasa. At the age of eight,
Buddhadasa started his primary education, reading and writing Thai, as a temple boy
(<dek wat) in his family temple, Wat Mai Phumriang. It seems that his interest in
Buddhism had not been noticed when he was a temple boy, since he expressed more
interest in traditional medicine that the monks were practising64. Buddhadasa started
grade one in formal primary school at the age of eleven, attended until grade three, and
moved on to secondary school65. On the other hand, Thammathat started from formal
primary education at the age of seven, finished four years in primary school, and
continued his studies in secondary school. When their father died in 1922, Buddhadasa
was in the third year, and Thammathat in the fourth year of secondary school. The
brothers might have become intellectually mature together regardless of the three-year
age difference between them.
On the death of their father, the elder brother Buddhadasa became the manager
of his mother’s shop in Phumriang, while Thammathat was ordained as a novice with
the merit to be dedicated to their late father. They started to belong to different worlds,

outstanding contributors to Buddhism, two founders of [Suan] Mokkh Phalaram - Khana

Thammathan), a leaflet on the lives and works of Buddhadasa and Thammathat, which was
published by the Khana Thammathan; and an M.A. thesis on Thammathat: Wira Phaengyang,
“Suksa chiwaprawat lae phonngan khong thammathat phanit” (A Study on the life history and works
of Thammathat Phanit), M.A. thesis, Mahawitthayalai sinakharin wirot phak tai, 1996). Thammathat
fell ill on 21 November 1999 because of bleeding in the oesophagus, but just as Buddhadasa had
wished, his family did not take him to a hospital for modem medical treatment to prolong his life.
His strength gradually decreased, and he finally breathed his last on 18 February 2000 (“Ramluk
khun khru thammathat phanit, phu chak pai” (A remembrance of the teacher, Thammathat Phanit,
who departed from us), Phutthasasana, Vol. 68 No. 2 (May, June, July 2000), p. 103). See also
Phutthasasana (chabap phiset: sadudi khru thammathat phanit) (Special issue: tribute to the teacher,
Thammathat Phanit), Vol. 68 No. 3 (August, September, October 2000).
63 Up until December 1940, or 2483 Buddhist Era, the Thai calendar started its year from April and
ended in March. According to the Thai calendar, Buddhadasa was bom in May 2449 (1906), and
Thammathat was bom in March 2451 (1909), so their age difference is only two years, but in the
common calendar, it is three.
64 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., pp. 22 - 29.
65 According to a report of the Ministry of Public Instruction in 1926-27, those who continue
studying at secondary school moved on to the first grade in secondary school from the third grade in
primary school, instead of completing the fifth grade in primary school (Ministry of Public
Instruction, Report on the work o f the Ministry o f Public Instruction o f the Siamese Government B.E.
2469 (1926-27) (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, 1931)). I am grateful for Prof. Eiji Murashima’s
advice on this valuable data.
34
but both found an interest in Buddhism in their respective societies. Although
Buddhadasa was only sixteen when his father died, he took full responsibility for the
shop (which dealt with daily commodities, such as rice, dried foods, oils, and some
books), from buying and selling to delivering goods to customers. Buddhadasa said that
he enjoyed engaging in this business66. The most significant experience for Buddhadasa
during this time was the discussion of the dhamma in his shop front with local customers.
An old man who worked at the provincial office liked to talk about the dhamma, and
people raised questions of the dhamma when this old man appeared. The man escaped
from his work for an hour to talk about the dhamma at Buddhadasa’s shop. Most of these
dhamma discussion members were old, while Buddhadasa was still a young boy. He had
to prepare for these discussions by means of the nak tham textbooks and other books on
Buddhism such as those of Thianwan and K. S. R. Kulap that his father had collected at
home. As a result of his study, Buddhadasa was confident that his explanations were
more correct than other people’s whose opinions came only from speculation. In 1925,
when Buddhadasa was nineteen, a nak tham school opened in Wat Photharam,
Phumriang, and everyone was invigorated and excited to talk about the dhamma61. This
seems to be the beginning of Buddhadasa’s interests in the dhamma and Buddhism, as a
lay Buddhist shopkeeper in a provincial town, before ordination .
While Buddhadasa was running the shop, Thammathat continued his education
in Surat Thani as a novice, and found interest in Buddhism in his own circle. After
several months of his noviciate at Wat Mai Phumriang, Thammathat moved to Wat
Traithammaram in Surat Thani and resumed his study in high school. In the temple in
Surat, Thammathat met a novice friend who wrote and circulated within the temple a
newsletter on Buddhism. Thammathat liked the nangsuphim thiang or argumentative
newspaper, to which he also contributed. Thammathat continued pursuing Buddhism

66 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 41.

Phra Pracha, Lao wai. .., pp. 41 - 42.
68 According to Thammathat, the brothers never talked about Buddhism in their childhood.
Thammathat said that he was not able to explain why Buddhadasa became interested in Buddhism,
but assumed it was because of Buddhadasa’s experience as a temple boy because the temple abbot
was capable in preaching the dhamma (Thammathat, interview). However, Buddhadasa did not
mention the dhamma he studied when he talked about his experience as a temple boy in the interview
with Phra Pracha. It was rather during the time when Thammathat was away from home for his
education, and Buddhadasa was running his shop that Buddhadasa started to be interested in
Buddhist dhamma.
35
after disrobing, even during his further study in Suan Kulap High School in Bangkok
for grades seven and eight, and during the first year in Chulalongkom University in the
Faculty of Arts and Science in the preparatory course for Medical School. Thammathat
became fluent in reading English through lessons by Western teachers when he was in
the elite high school and university. He came across Buddhist journals in English, such
as The young East and The Maha Bodhi in the library of Chulalongkom University, and
he discovered Thai books and journals on Buddhism, which were published in Bangkok,
including Saks a thammada (ordinary education)69. Thammathat cultivated his interests
through lay Buddhist movements both in foreign countries and in Bangkok until he left
school to take over the family business in place of his then ordained brother.
The education of Buddhadasa and Thammathat should be understood in their
contemporary context. Buddhadasa had to stop his formal education in the third year in
secondary school in order to run the family’s shop after his father’s death. According to
the statistics of the Ministry of Public Instruction, in the year 1926 in all of Thailand,
there were only 2,844 students who enrolled in the third year in secondary school,
among whom 1,938 passed the final exam . Thammathat, after completing the sixth
grade in secondary school in Surat Thani, continued his education to grade seven and
eight in order to matriculate, he was among the very elite in the country. According to
the same statistics in the whole of Thailand, there were only 305 students who enrolled
in the eighth grade in secondary school, and among them 72 passed the graduation
exam71. Although Thammathat had to quit his education because of his brother’s
ordination, he was one of the few selected students of his time. Their high educational
accomplishment should not be evaluated by the standards of the late twentieth century.
In 1926, at the age of twenty, which fulfils the age qualification for full
ordination to become a monk, Buddhadasa became a monk, Phra Nguam Inthapanyo, at
his family temple, Wat Mai Phumriang, which belongs to the Mahanikai Order.
Buddhadasa and his family followed the Thai tradition for Buddhist males to be
ordained for three months before getting married, but he never disrobed72. For the first

69 Thammathat, interview.
70 Ministry of Public Instruction, Report on the work of the Ministry of Public Instruction.
;1 Ministry of Public Instruction, Report on the work of the Ministry of Public Instruction.
72 Phra Pracha, Lao wai. .., pp. 51 - 52.
36
two years as a monk at Wat Mai Phumriang, he voluntarily gave sermons73 and wrote
an internally circulated newspaper'4. These were the most basic methods for holding
dhamma discussions in a small part of the Buddhist public sphere, which existed in many
different localities, as Thammathat had experienced in Surat Thani.
Buddhadasa’s attitude to the study of Buddhism became serious after he
experienced the monastic life in Bangkok in his third year of ordination in 1928. After
passing the third and second grades of nak tham examinations in Phumriang,
Buddhadasa was persuaded by A Siang to study in Bangkok at Wat Pathumkhongkha,
the temple where A Siang used to be phra baidika. Buddhadasa was disappointed with
the vinaya offences of Bangkok monks, whom he once thought of as excellent and as
arahant. After a few months stay in Bangkok, Buddhadasa felt like disrobing because he
was about to become the same as other monks. Buddhadasa returned home in
Phumriang, but it was an inappropriate time for disrobing. So he read books by himself,
including the works of lay intellectuals and foreign journals that Thammathat gave him,
*7f

and he passed the first grade nak tham at the end of the rains retreat . Because the study
was so much fun, he forgot about disrobing.
In 1930 during his fifth year of ordination, after his experience as a teacher at a
nak tham school that his wealthy aunt, Nguan Setthaphakdi founded at Wat Phra
Boromathat Chaiya , Buddhadasa decided to study Pali in Bangkok in order to
investigate Buddhism more deeply. This time, Buddhadasa ignored whatever other
Bangkok monks did. He had private Pali lessons with Phra Khru Chayaphiwat (Klan),
who was a disciple of A Siang while he was in robes, he studied English using

73 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., pp. 70 - 71.

74 Phra Pracha, Lao wai. .., pp. 74 - 76.
75 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 78 - 87.
/6 Kimnguan, or Nguan for short, was one of the wives of Phraya Patinanphumirak, a very wealthy
Chinese merchant in Surat Thani. She donated 5,000 baht for building the nak tham school in the
historic Sri Vijaya temple for the merit of her dead parents. Buddhadasa was already famous in the
region for his ability to explain the dhamma in his sermons and for serious study of Buddhism, so his
aunt recruited Buddhadasa to be a teacher in her newly opened school. Buddhadasa taught two
classes of students, and all students passed the third and second grade of nak tham examinations
except one whose answer sheet was lost by the examiners. This result must be far better than the old
nak tham school in Phumuring. His aunt, Nguan, offered a reward for Buddhadasa’s teaching work,
a set of one pitaka of the three. Buddhadasa instead requested a Thai typewriter, which he was to use
throughout his life, because he could borrow and read Tipitaka volumes in the temple (Phra Pracha,
Lao wai. .., pp. 89 - 90).
37
Linguaphone records, and played with cameras and typewriters by himself 7.
Buddhadasa passed the most basic, third level of the Pali examination on the
Dhammapada in 1930 without much difficulty, but he felt tired studying the fourth level,
which studied a very short section of the Tipitaka, the Mangala sutta, and its extensive
commentary, Mangalatthadipani, on which the teachers based their explanations.
Buddhadasa still expected to pass the fourth level, though he found it rather difficult to
agree with the teachers and other students'8. After he failed the fourth level of Pali
examination at the end of 1931, he determined to return home in Chaiya in order to start
to do what he believed to be true. In May 1932, Buddhadasa became secluded in an
abandoned temple, which was renovated as his place of dhamma practice, Suan
Mokkhphalaram.
Although Buddhadasa’s formal ecclesiastical education ceased at the third level
of the Pali examination, this did not mean that his scriptural studies remained at a basic
level. Even before his study of Pali in Bangkok, his philosophical understanding of
Buddhism was advanced. The young Buddhadasa’s intellectual maturity was
demonstrated in his sermon in 1930, Phra phutthasasana chan phuthuchon (Buddhism
at the level of unenlightened ordinary people), which was published and distributed by
his aunt, Kim’nguan Setthapakdi to inaugurate the opening of her new nak tham school
where Buddhadasa taught for a year. It was not only at a time when Buddhist
philosophy was not yet commonly known amongst monks or well explained in books,
but the sermon very logically explained key Buddhist concepts, and is perhaps much
more difficult to read than his later popular sermons . Furthermore, Buddhadasa
studied Pali by himself after he abandoned the ecclesiastical examinations.
Buddhadasa’s early works, which he translated and edited from Pali scriptures, such as
Phutthaprawat chak phra ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words), were highly
respected even by pariyatti monks in Mahamakut Buddhist University, where it was
or\
chosen as a sub-textbook . Buddhadasa was respected as a Pali pariyatti scholar, and his
academic standard should not be judged from the level of his formal education.

77 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., pp. 9 4 - 103, 111 - 114.

8 Phra Pracha,Lao w ai..., pp. 1 1 0 - 111.
79 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Phra phutthasasana chan phuthuchon (Bangkok: Klum suksa lae patibat
tham, reprint edition).
80 Phra Pracha, Lao wai. .., p. 300.
38
 While Buddhadasa pursued his study of Buddhism into the Pali scriptures as a
monk, his lay brother Thammathat investigated Buddhism in foreign Buddhist journals
in English. After his return home from Chulalongkom University, Thammathat met
Sirisena, a Sinhalese traveller staying in Chaiya, and learnt specifically about the work
of Anagarika Dharmapala and the Maha Bodhi Society. Thammathat became more
interested in Buddhist movements around the world and he started subscribing to
Buddhist journals in English such as Maha Bodhi, The British Buddhist, and Buddhist
Annual of Ceylon. Thammathat gave Buddhadasa those journals to read, but
Buddhadasa said that he did not understand them very well81. Although Buddhadasa
studied English by himself, it seems that it was not until the mid-1940s that he was able
to translate English works. English literature was Thammathat’s specialised field of
knowledge because of his formal training. The brothers exchanged views and respected
each other’s knowledge. Buddhadasa’s Pali and Thammathat’s English complemented
each other82.
Thammathat started translating some of the English articles for publication in
Thai newspapers, such as Sri krung, Deli me (Daily Mail), and Thai khasem, and after
1929 he started using his penname “Thammathat” (in Pali, Dhammadäsa), which means a
0*5

slave of the dhamma, instead of his given name, Yikoei . Buddhadasa imitated the
penname of his brother and named himself, “Phutthathat” in Thai or “Buddhadasa” in
Pali, which means a slave of the Buddha. Using that name, he had contributed some
articles of religious criticism to the daily newspaper, Krunthep deli me (Bangkok Daily
Mail) , before his establishment of Suan Mokkh. Moreover, through introductions by
Thammathat, who had corresponded with them, Buddhadasa met such persons in the
news as Narin Phasit (1874 - 1950)85 and Phra Lokanatha (1897 - 1966)86, an Italian

81 Thammathat, interview; Phra Pracha,Lao wai..., pp. 87 - 88, 126 - 127.

82 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 204.
83 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 127; “Bannathikan thalaeng” (Editor’s note), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1
No. 3 (November 1933), p. 106.
84 Buddhadasa said that the Krunthep deli me did not put his penname, Phutthathat, with his article
(Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 156). The pseudonym, Phutthathat or Buddhadasa, became more known
to people through his articles in the journal, Phutthasasana, which was launched May 1933.
83 Narin visited Buddhadasa at his temple in Bangkok, Wat Pathumkhongkha, on advice from
Thammathat. The group of Thammathat agreed with Narin because Narin wanted monks to be strict,
instead of being superstitious as they commonly behaved. Thammathat seemed to believe that his
brother, Buddhadasa, was a strict monk who was critical of superstitions so that both Narin and
Buddhadasa should agree with and help each other. However, Buddhadasa did not agree with Narin
39
bhikkhu whose project of a world Buddhist mission created a sensation in Thailand from
1933 to 1934. Thammathat’s interest in contemporary Buddhist movements seems to
have been a significant stimuli for Buddhadasa.
However, as a monk, Buddhadasa was more involved in the monastic world
than Thammathat. Those books that impressed Buddhadasa and from which he received
most influence were not only those of lay Buddhist thinkers, but also those of the
Sangha’s doctrinally most influential figure, Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Warorot.
Buddhadasa in fact collected all the works by Wachirayan by himself, because the
collection of all his works was not then yet published. Buddhadasa said that he liked
Wachirayan’s style of writings, which
... had the principles of a nak prat (philosopher, a person with wisdom). [We] can
consider that he was a pioneer of modem/up-to-date interpretation of the dhumma
(phu bukboek kan tikhwam thamma hai than samai). [He] interpreted miracles
comprehensively87.

Buddhadasa considered that the reforms undertaken by Wachirayan were

important progress. However, the problem of the Sangha being outdated were rather to
be seen in conservative elder monks who did not see any necessity to catch up with the
changing world. He said,
The period of Somdet Phra Maha Samana Chao [i.e., Wachirayan] can be
considered as a certain level of pioneering and moving toward quite a few further
changes. However, there are few who continue it, who are as smart as him, or as
capable as him. [Thus, the reform] did not go beyond inflexible rules, as far as he

(Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., pp. 121 - 122).

86 Buddhadasa first went to meet Phra Lokanatha accompanied by Sanya Dhammasakdi, one of
Lokanatha’s supporters in Thailand (see more details in p. 60). After the unsuccessful first tour and
the decline in Lokanatha’s popularity, Thammathat asked Buddhadasa to visit the house of Phra
Aphaiwong, which Phra Lokanatha announced in The Maha Bodhi journal as a place he stayed in
Bangkok. However, no one seemed to be living in the house, and Buddhadasa did not meet Phra
Lokanatha (Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., pp. 129 - 130). A biography of Lokanatha and his mission are
reported in: Karuna Kusalasai, Chiwit thi luak mai dai (Life without choice) (Bangkok: Mae kham
phang, 1986), pp. 69 - 93, 240 - 242, 260 - 261; Phra Maha Chanya Sutthiyano, Chiwit lae ngan
khong than panyanantha (The life and work of Ven. Panyanantha) (Bangkok: Borisat Amarin, 1991),
pp. 63 - 88. According to Karuna, who was one of the novices involved in the tour, Lokanatha, or
Salvatore Cioffi before his ordination, was bom in Italy and was raised a Roman Catholic. He
completed a bachelor’s degree in science at Columbia University in the United States, and in 1925
he was ordained as a Buddhist monk in Burma. In the journal, Maha Bodhi in January 1933 (2435
Buddhist Era), he advertised three Buddhist world missions, by a Burmese group in 1933, by a Thai
and Cambodian group in 1934, and by a Sinhalese group in 1935 (this was translated and reported as
“Phiksu doen pai phae sasana tang prathet” (A monk who goes to propagate Buddhism in foreign
countories), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1, No. 3 (November 1933), pp. 64 - 73). Buddhadasa’s journal,
Phutthasasana, reprinted newspaper and journal articles about Lokanatha’s mission in: Vol. 1 No. 2,
3, 4; Vol. 2 No. 1, 2, 3, 4; Vol. 3 No. 1+2, 3; Vol. 4 No. 1; Vol. 5 No. 2, 3, 4; Vol. 6 No. 1; and Vol. 7
No. 2.
8/ Phra Pracha,Lao wai ..., pp. 112-113.
40
 had established [them]. [People] are not brave enough to touch or change even a
word. Problems exist like this in the circle of religion85.

In this critical view of conservative monks, Buddhadasa implied that his work was to
make further progress based on the achievement of Wachirayan’s reform.
When he looked at the harsh attacks on corrupt monks made by notable lay
Buddhist activists, Buddhadasa was rather sceptical, as were the elder monks in the
Sangha and conservative circles89. For example, Thammathat and some other lay
members of the Khana Thammathan supported Narin’s critical campaign against the
existing state of Buddhist practice and favoured his plan to revive bhikkhuni ordination.
On the other hand, Buddhadasa considered Narin as “half crazy, half intoxicated”
(khrung ba, khrung mao), and as “seeking fame by complimenting the four Buddhist
groups”90, which in the Thai Theraväda tradition had lost bhikkhuni out of the bhikkhu

(ordained men), bhikkhuni (ordained women), upäsaka (laymen), and upäsikä (laywomen).

Also in the case of Phra Lokanatha, Buddhadasa was not as enthusiastic as

Thammathat. Thammathat was very excited with the news of Lokanatha’s project of a
Buddhist world missionary tour, which had been advertised in The Maha Bodhi journal
and been translated and collected along with related news and articles about Lokanatha
in both English and Thai journals91. On the other hand, Buddhadasa did not agree to join
in Lokanatha’s world dhamma mission to Bodhgaya, Jerusalem, and Rome. When
Lokanatha was still at the peak of his popularity, Buddhadasa wrote an article,
“Thammai mai pai kap Phra Lokkanat” (Why I did not go with Lokanatha) under
another pseudonym “Parien dek” (A boy with the Pali qualification) in a daily

Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 123 - 124.

89 Aside from the case of Narin that I examine in the text, Buddhadasa’s view on K S. R. Kulap was
also rather closer to the royalist elite who discredited Kulap. When Buddhadasa leamt of some
works of Kulap, and heard a story from his uncle, A Sing, who actually had had a chance to talk with
Kulap, Buddhadasa agreed that Kulap’s works enabled people in the provinces to gain a wider
knowledge, and were in opposition to the establishment circle. However, Buddhadasa concluded that
Kulap was boasting of his achievement against the king, and wanted to become famous so that he
insisted unverified information was in fact true (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 43).
90 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 121.
91 Not only Thammathat, but many Thai intellectual Buddhists were excited by Lokanatha. The
founders of the Buddhist Association of Thailand, such as Phra Ratchathamnithet and Sanya
Dhammasakdi, supported the campaign of Lokanatha who wanted to take Thai monks and novices
on the tour. Panyanantha Bhikkhu and Bunchuan Khemaphirat, who later became Buddhadasa’s
co-workers of dhumma propagation, also accompanied Lokanatha to Burma and India. However,
Buddhadasa did not agree to go on the world tour with Lokanatha, and was rather sceptical about the
popularity of Lokanatha (Phra Pracha,Lao w ai..., pp. 129 - 130).
41
newspaper, Prachathipatai (24 November 1933)92. Among the four reasons that
Buddhadasa pointed out for not going with Lokanatha, the first one seems to be the
most important to examine94. Buddhadasa wrote that he was only engaged in pariyatd
dhamma or scriptural studies, but not much with samana dhamma or ascetic practice. It
would be difficult to have solitude, which is appropriate and necessary for practising
samana dhamma , during a big campaign for propagation. Unlike his lay brother who was
excited by the propagation of the Buddhist dhamma as something to be developed,
Buddhadasa, a monk, was more concerned with pursuing his own path to arahantship
that the Buddha exemplified for his disciples.
For similar reasons, Buddhadasa did not completely believe in or agree with
the mission of Anagarika Dharmapala which Thammathat respected as a model for his
activities. Although Thammathat extensively translated and introduced Dharmapala’s
writings and activities, Buddhadasa considered that some of his works were good, but
some others were reckless (ba bin). In Buddhadasa’s view, the academic standard of
Dharmapala did not reach the ultimate level of the dhamma , and also his spirituality was
not perfect. Buddhadasa indicated that Dharmapala still believed in rebirth as ordinary,
uneducated people do, and he struck the head of a Westerner who entered a temple vihara

without taking off his shoes. Buddhadasa criticised this attitude of Dharmapala as being
more worldly than religious oriented94. In fact, Dharmapala did not receive a good
response from the Thai elite and wealthy classes when he came to Thailand for
fund-raising. He wanted to purchase the historical sites of Buddhism in India from the
landowners. Prince Damrong’s analysis was that because Dharmapala’s attitude was
hateful and critical of the destruction of Buddhism in India for the past seven hundred

99
" This article was also reprinted in his journal, Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 1 (May 1934), pp. 210 -
212-.
93 The second of the four points that Buddhadasa indicated was that it was difficult to practise the
dhamma on a world tour if one was attracted by the catchy advertisement of travelling the world. The
third was that Phra Lokanatha was not trustworthy enough, since he named himself, Lokanatha,
which can really only indicate the Buddha. The fourth was similar to the third, Lokanatha claimed in
a Visakha conference that he would not have taught other people if he was not yet in one of the
streams of arahantship. That means that Lokanatha, who had already started preaching, had
accomplished arahantship, but Buddhadasa could not believe in his claim (“Parian dek”, “Thammai
mai pai kap Phra Lokkanat”, pp. 211 - 212).
94 Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., pp. 128 - 129. Buddhadasa’s critical comment on Dharmapala’s belief in
rebirth referred to Dharmapala’s famous words at his death, “Let me be reborn... I would like to be
bom again twenty-five times to spread Lord Buddha’s Dhamma” (Ananda Guruge (ed.), Return to
Righteousness, p. xliii).
42
years, Thai people did not feel that they would receive merit by this Buddhist
restoration, which instead might turn out to be merely revenge based on micchäditüii

(wrong views)95. Buddhadasa’s attitude was closer to the common sense of the Thai
elite rather than one favouring joining in protest and reformist campaigns, the
argumentative side of things which his brother liked.
The brothers both came to have strong interests in Buddhism in their respective
circles, but their ways of looking at things were not always the same, partly due to their
differences in educational backgrounds (which gave them access to different languages),
and also in their ordination status. However, their different ordained status and roles
were necessary for the development of their activities: Suan Mokkh for dhamma practice,
and the Khana Thammathan ( dhamma-däna group) for material and propagation support,
both of these co-operating to produce the journal, Phutthasasana (Buddhism).

4. The activities of Suan Mokkh and the Khana Thammathan

Buddhadasa gave up his studies in Bangkok and returned to Phumriang in

March 1932. Thammathat’s group found and renovated an abandoned temple, Wat
Traphangchik, for the solitude of Buddhadasa’s ascetic practice. On 12 May 1932,
Buddhadasa entered the temple for vipassanä meditation, and named it Suan Mokkh
Phalaram, which means “a place having power for liberation”96. In July 1932, the
Khana Thammathan came together as a group, which consisted of ordinary town
commoners of Chinese descent . They opened a room for listening to monks’ preach-

3 Damrong first met Dharmapala when he was visiting India in 1891. Dharmapala explained his
plan of restoring Buddhism in India by making the historical site of Buddhism in Bodhgaya a centre
for propagating the dhamma. However, the Hindu landowner of the Bodhgaya site did not sell the
land to Dharmapala so Dharmapala sought assistance from Prince Damrong to talk to the
governor-general of India to pressure the owner. Damrong declined his co-operation, first because he
was a guest of the government of India, and unable to intervene in politics. Second, Damrong
indicated that propagation of the dhamma, which has primary importance over land ownership, can be
started from anywhere, so why did they have to start with strife over land. Dharmapala seemed to be
unhappy with Damrong’s response and never sought contact to him (Somdet Krom Phraya Damrong
Ratchanuphap, Nithan borankhadi (Ancient stories) (Published as a cremation volume for Nang
Nian Laphanukrom, 1968), pp. 57 - 58).
96 Buddhadasa found in the premises of the abandoned temple that there were many trees of mok
and phla. By those names of the trees, he named the temple Suan Mokkh Phalaram, “a garden of
mok and phla trees”, which can also mean “a place having a power for liberation (Pali: mokkha)”
(Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 155 - 156).
Thammathat, interview.
43
ing. Coincidentally in the same year on 24 June, the so-called Constitutional Revolution
was made by the People’s Party, which demanded King Prajadhipok sign the
Constitution that claimed sovereignty for the people. Buddhadasa commented on this
coincidence as follows:
Therefore, the calendar of Suan Mokkh is easiest to remember in a short phrase:
“the same year of the change of political system”. We consider this point as a sign
of a new change in order to make things better to the utmost of our abilities98.

Even though Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan had nothing to do with this
political change in Bangkok, their activities stood for a popular expression and
exchange of opinions outside elite, royalist circles.
In order to start their Buddhist activities, Buddhadasa and Thammathat asked
their mother for seed money. In June 1932, after the establishment of Suan Mokkh, their
mother agreed to draw up a legal will to make thun ton takun phanit (The foundation
fund of the Phanit family) using her savings of 6,368 baht". This amount, called in their
Thai dialect, ngoen phuan phi (literally “money of a ghost’s friend”), was for illness in
old age and for making merit before death. Their mother, Khluan, originally intended to
build either a temple or a monastery hall with her personal savings in order to
accumulate good merit for her future lives, just as did other old people in Thailand who
were about to leave this world. The brothers persuaded their mother that the expenditure
of her money on building a hut for monks and publishing a journal would make more
merit than building ten beautiful monastery halls. They explained that their way was
more meritorious because some people would become clear in the teachings of the
Buddha and some other people might become eager to practice the dhamma of the
Buddha, while ten beautiful monastery halls would never make people feel that way100.
Through the interest that they gained from their mother’s fund, which was
approximately 500 baht per year101, they could pay for the initial cost of sustaining the
lives of monks in Suan Mokkh and publishing the journal, until their activities were

98 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Sip p i nai suan mok: lao ruang chiwit nai wai num (Ten years in Suan
Mokkh: talking about the life when young) (Nonthaburi: Kong thun wutthit tham), p. 2.
99 “Prawat nang khluan phanit” (A history of Mrs. Khluan Phanit), Phutthasasana, Vol. 16 No. 3
(August 1948), p. 86.
100 “Matu buchanuson” (Commemoration for mother), Phutthasasana, Vol. 16 No. 3 (August 1948),
p. 80.
01 “Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 1 - 2 (May - August 1935),
p. 639.
44
supported by other donations.
Having Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh and Thammathat in the Khana
Thammathan in different ordained status but working for a common goal, the brothers
took complementary roles in the activities. Buddhadasa needed appropriate support for
his religious practice. He wanted to avoid the situation in which an ordained monk has
to contradict his precepts, such as dealing with money, in the way he had experienced in
the temple in Bangkok. His lay brother prepared ideal conditions for solitude, and
provided just the necessary food and basic materials to survive in order for Buddhadasa
to pursue the dhamma that would lead him to religious attainment.
It was this dhamma that was most essential for the lay Buddhist movements to
seek and to propagate to others. For the lay Buddhists in the Khana Thammathan, who
were not able to devote their entire lives to religious practice, they could not precisely
express the true dhamma that should replace superstitious Buddhism. Without the
presence of the dhamma in their movement, their campaign to attack superstitions could
not propose any alternative. When the dhamma that Buddhadasa explored and taught was
valid and useful for his lay supporters, the support for his religious practice and for the
delivering of his messages was meaningful for the movement to restore the true
Buddhism that the Buddha had had preached.
The monks in Suan Mokkh and the lay people in the Khana Thammathan were
in a reciprocal relationship. Buddhadasa and the monks in Suan Mokkh, a temple
dedicated to ascetic practice, gained material support from the Khana Thammathan, and
the lay group received dhamma teaching from an ordained authority in robes. Their
essentially inter-dependent relationship corresponds to the traditional exchange of
vatthu-däna (material offering) and dhamma-däna (offering of the dhamma) between monks
and laity.
The propagation of the dhamma was the inseparable joint activity of
Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh, and Thammathat and the other lay supporters in the Khana
Thammathan. Dhamma propagation was conducted through the print media and through
speeches. Their journal, Phutthasasana, and preaching in a room in the Khana
Thammathan, a gathering place of people, were the common activities of Suan Mokkh
and of the Khana Thammathan.
Since the beginning of Suan Mokkh in 1932, there have been three main
45
characteristics in Buddhadasa’s thought throughout his life essential in the activities of
Suan Mokkh and the Khana Thammathan. First, he emphasised the ultimate purpose of
Buddhism in the overcoming of suffering. Whatever exists in the Buddhist tradition of
Thailand or in the Pali scriptures, Buddhadasa judged it as non-Buddhist or unnecessary
if it had nothing to do with this purpose. He explained that suffering was to be
overcome by rational causality (Pali: hetuphaJa), as formulated in the four noble truths,
the law of dependent origination (Pali: paüccasamuppäda), and idappaccayadä. Second,
Buddhadasa gave the most significance in present practice to overcoming suffering here
and now. He encouraged people to receive the fruit of Buddhist teachings immediately
by practising; it was not necessary to wait until future lives. Third, Buddhadasa
promoted Buddhist teaching more to lay Buddhists and others further away from the
Buddhist ordained circle. This was Buddhadasa’s and the Khana Thammathan’s work of
propagating Buddhism. Their mission was different from proselytising traditions of
Christian missionaries, who attempted to convert other religious believers to
Christianity. For Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan the propagation of the
dhamma meant the promotion of a Buddhism that teaches the overcoming of suffering
here and now, regardless of the receivers’ already being Buddhist or not.
In fact, these characteristics of Buddhadasa’s thought and the Khana
Thammathan almost coincided with their forerunner, the lay Buddhist movement led by
Narin Phasit. Narin established the Association of Buddhists (phutthaborisat
samakhom), which renovated an abandoned temple in Nonthaburi province adjacent to
Bangkok. The idea of dhamma practice for overcoming suffering was central to both
groups. Narin intended for his association “to make a convenient place for the dhamma

practice (which is not wrong - note by Narin) for any Buddhist who aims at the
overcoming of suffering without asking whether they be men or women, whether
donning yellow, black, or white robes, whether their hair is long or short” . The
overcoming of suffering was recognised as the true practice of the dhamma by Narin, and
he attempted to expand his movement by restoring the bhikkhuni, or the Theraväda

Buddhist women’s ordination.

Nevertheless, the Khana Thammathan was different from Narin’s movement in

102 Narin Phasit, Chuai bamrung chat (Assist nurturing the nation) (1914), p. 34.
46
two ways. First, the Khana Thammathan came up with the same criticism of corrupt
monks and existing superstitious Buddhist beliefs as Narin’s lay association, which had
provoked more conflict with the Sangha authorities than change for the better. Although
the Khana Thammathan was a group of progressive lay Buddhists just like Narin’s, the
Khana had Buddhadasa, a monk whose practice and teachings were recognised as
exemplary by his audience, including both the elder monks in the Sangha and lay elite
intellectuals. The ideal model of the dhamma practice that Buddhadasa exemplified in
Suan Mokkh was essential to the Khana Thammathan and lay Buddhists who sought the
same purpose of overcoming suffering by a true dhamma practice.
Second, unlike Narin’s confronting movement against authorities, Buddhadasa
and the Khana Thammathan carefully avoided unnecessary conflict. Even though
Buddhadasa was already famous and tmsted for his intellectuality among the elder
monks in his hometown, he did not tell anyone about his plan to seclude himself in a
forest temple for meditation practice, except for Thammathat and the members of the
Khana Thammathan . Buddhadasa expected that his idea of following the path of the
Buddha written in the scriptures was difficult to be believed especially among academic
monks. In fact, his teacher of Pali in Bangkok, Phra Khru Chayaphiwat, considered
vipassanä meditation already outdated and did not agree with Buddhadasa’s idea of
conducting meditation practice104. When they started to renovate the abandoned temple
for Buddhadasa’s solitude, they legally drew up a contract to hire the place from the
government in order to obtain legal rights to occupy the land105. Buddhadasa also
reported the purpose of his activities in Suan Mokkh to the chief monk of the province
(<chao khana changwat) Sangha administration106. Their prudent preparations seemed to
be partly because they had leamt from the experiment of Narin Phasit (who founded
various reformist groups of religion before Buddhadasa), which were so controversial

Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., pp. 135, 149.

104 Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., p. 136.
1Cb Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., p. 153; “Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan” (Announcement of the
Khana Thammathan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 1 (May 1933), p. 12. Later, they stopped paying the
rent for the land and temple of Suan Mokkh, because when Buddhadasa had an audience with
Supreme Patriarch Wachirayanawong, he laughed at their over-carefulness of legally hiring a temple
in order to let a monk abide there (Phra Pracha,Lao w a i..., p. 154).
106 “jhalaengkan khong khana thammathan” (Announcement of the Khana Thammathan),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 2 (August 1933), p. 55.
47
that the goodwill of his movement was difficult for the people at large to accept107. Over
all, Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan were careful enough not to be at odds with
the public and religious authorities in order to conduct what they believed to be true and
good. Although both Narin and Buddhadasa were similarly from well-to-do commoner
backgrounds, it did not mean that Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan overtly
challenged the status quo as representatives from the middle class against the
authoritarian control of the absolute monarchy or the Sangha.
Narin’s movement was short-lived, while Suan Mokkh and the Khana
Thammathan became more influential, even though both made very similar attempts to
promote the dhamma to the laity to overcome suffering. Suan Mokkh started as a place
for Buddhadasa’s solitude, but more monks and novices were coming to visit and stay
for conducting practice. The old Suan Mokkh in Phumriang was too small to meet this
demand, so they moved to the present Suan Mokkh in Chaiya in 1944. Not only monks
and novices, but also women ascetics and lay intellectuals came to visit Buddhadasa and
stayed in Suan Mokkh to consult about dhamma practice temporarily for a while.
University students over several generations organised a group of temporarily ordained
monks and came to Suan Mokkh to receive Buddhadasa’s preaching during their
holidays. Since the late 1980s, Achan Pho, the present abbot of Suan Mokkh after
Buddhadasa’s death, had opened a regular meditation course for foreigners and Thai lay
Buddhists and members of other religions. According to Metta Phanit, who took
responsibility for the present Khana Thammathan when his father Thammathat grew old,
Suan Mokkh is supported by people who feel that Buddhadasa’s teachings have
benefited their lives even after Buddhadasa’s death.

5. Important early exchanges with contemporary intellectuals

In the early stages of the activities of Buddhadasa and the Khana

107 Although Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan tried to avoid conflict, some members of the
Khana Thammathan believed strongly in Narin’s movement and made Buddhadasa’s teacher, Phra
Khru Chayaphiwat, angry by proposing Narin’s ideas (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 136). In the
beginning of their activities, troubles were inevitable, for example, some actually distrusted the
Khana Thammathan as “disciples of Narin”, and the monk in Suan Mokkh as “crazy” (“Matu
buchanuson” (Commemoration and respect for the late mother), Phutthasasana, Vol. 16 No. 3
(August 1948), p.82).
48
Thammathan, their journal, Phutthasasana (Buddhism), had a great impact on the
intellectuals in the Buddhist public sphere. There were very good responses to their
journal from both ordained and lay Buddhists who were pursuing profound meaning
and a way of practice beyond the conventional Buddhism to which they were already
accustomed. The intellectual exchanges with these intellectuals were significant for
Buddhadasa in further developing his thought. Also, their discussions were an important
part of the contemporary Buddhist public sphere.
In this section, I am going to examine three kinds of people who encountered
Buddhadasa at the beginning of his activities, and who contributed to his intellectual
development: young progressive monks and novices; academic elder monks in the
Sangha; and lay intellectuals who had studied overseas.

Progressive monks and novices

Some of the most progressive monks and novices in the early 1930s became
followers of the world mission led by the Italian monk, Phra Lokanatha. This initiative
was perceived as honourable work for the religion and was supported by many high
status people, including King Prajadhipok and important government officials
connected to the People’s Party. Lokanatha called his members “lion-hearted bhikkhus
and samaneras” as they dedicated themselves to the propagation of Buddhism in
Bodhgaya, Jerusalem, and Rome. But the group also included those who were simply
interested in travelling all over the world108.
In the face of difficulties faced on the way from Northern Thailand to Burma,
through Tak, Mae Sot, and up to Yangon, Lokanatha soon lost control of the more than
one hundred followers of his idealistic project. When they went through the jungle,
quite a few members either became ill or dropped out even before leaving the territory
of Thailand. In May 1934 when the group arrived in Yangon, Burmese people told them
that in the previous year Lokanatha took about three hundred Burmese monks and
novices on a very difficult journey to India, where a number of them died. Therefore,
only a few Burmese people respected and supported Lokanatha and his Thai followers.
Most Thai monks abandoned Lokanatha to return to Thailand, and only about ten young

108
Karuna, Chiwit thi luak mai dai, pp. 69 - 79.
49
novices remained to continue the journey in India109. Among the monks who left

Lokanatha in Yangon, there were two future co-workers of Buddhadasa’s dhamma

propagation activities, Phra Pan Pathumuttaro (known as Panyanantha Bhikkhu; 1911

- ) and Phra Bunchuan Khemaphirat (1917 - ). On the other hand, among those who

followed Lokanatha, there was Sämanera Karuna Kusalasai, who remained in India and

corresponded with Buddhadasa in Thailand.

Ten monks from the South, including Pan and Bunchuan, went ahead of the

main group, and Lokanatha sent a telegram to someone in the town where they were

heading. After leaving Bangkok, they practised real dhutahga (ascetic practice), sleeping

only in the open air, sometimes in a graveyard, keeping a vegetarian diet, and so forth.

They even gave sermons in English for Burmese people, because as a schoolteacher

Bunchuan knew English, and Pan learnt it in his secondary education, which was not

widespread at that tim e110. This was a very adventurous experience for them. However,

when Lokanatha lost control of nearly a hundred newly ordained, uneducated monks

who started fighting each other because of the fatigue of the journey, he accused the ten

monks from the South of splitting from the group. After the splitting of the group in

Yangon, Pan returned to Thailand, and Bunchuan went to India by him self**111.

Although in the beginning those monks were admired for their aspirations,

when the members returned from Burma, Thai people were disappointed by the

unsuccessful mission of Lokanatha. Abbots of temples in Bangkok even rejected the

returnees112. At a suggestion of his friend, Pan went down south in Songkhla province,

where he gained tremendous popularity as an excellent preacher of the dhamma. In

Songkhla, Pan first read Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana. The biographer of Pan

wrote:

Most articles [in Phutthasasana] were the works of Ven. Buddhadasa. He

encouraged and stimulated readers to feel like doing dhamma practice. He [Pan] read
[the journal] and felt very satisfied with it. He thought, “Ah, Ven. Buddhadasa

109 The consequence of Lokanatha’s mission that I describe here is based on newspaper articles that
the Khana Thammathan reprinted in their journal: “Khao phra lokanat nam phikkhu thai ok pai chak
prathet sayam” (News about Phra Lokanatha, who leads Thai monks out of Siam), Phutthasasana,
Vol. 2 No. 2 (August 1934), pp. 284 - 294.
110 Chalong Cheyakhom, Than bo. cho. khemaphirat (Ven. Bunchuan Khemaphirat) (Bangkok:
Somsan), p. 43; Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 21.
111 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 63 - 84.
112 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 87 - 88.
50
 should have been in the group of Phra Lokanatha”113.

In fact, while Buddhadasa openly disagreed with Lokanatha, this statement of Pan
suggests that Buddhadasa and Lokanatha shared progressive elements that their
contemporaries could recognise.
After the splitting of Lokanatha’s group, Bunchuan, went on to stay in India for
two years. There he also read the journal, Phutthasasana, and he started contributing
many articles and translations to it from English journals beginning in May 1936
onwards114. Because of his foreign experience and ability to translate English, his
contributions brought previously unknown information to Thai Buddhist readers, and
enriched the discussions of the journal. Bunchuan was given a special introduction in
the issue in August 1936 by the journal editor, Thammathat115.
Returning from India in 1936, Bunchuan asked Pan to spend the rains retreat at
Suan Mokkh. In that year, there were only four monks and a novice staying at Suan
Mokkh. They saw Buddhadasa was writing Tam roi phra arahan (Following the
footprints of arahant) by translating Pali scriptures into Thai that appeared as a series of
articles in Phutthasasana. In the evening they discussed the dhamma, in all aspects, such
as scriptural studies, practice, and propagation. According to Pan’s biographer,
Bunchuan often expressed disagreement and argued with Buddhadasa, but Buddhadasa
explained his views and gave his reasons. Pan, who was still younger than Bunchuan
and Buddhadasa, listened rather quietly, and gained much insight from these discussions.
After the rains retreat, Buddhadasa recommended that Pan study Pali in Bangkok in
order to work further for Buddhism116.
Although Bunchuan and Pan never had another chance to spend a rains retreat
with Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh, they shared ideas and co-operated with each other.
Bunchuan later became involved in the Sangha administration, was appointed to the
head of the Chumphon province ecclesiastical division, and on him was conferred the
title, Phra Ratchayanakwi. Pan became known as Panyanantha Bhikkhu for his sermons
on the dhamma. At the cremation of Bunchuan, Buddhadasa commented on the

lij Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 99.
114 Bo. Cho. [abbr. Bunchuan] Khemaphirat, “Khwam suam sun khong phra phutthasasana nai
india” (Decline of Buddhism in India), Phutthasasana, Vol. 4 No. 1 (May 1936), pp. 11 - 26.
114 “Bannathikan thalaeng” (Editor’s announcement), Phutthasasana, Vol. 4 No. 2 (August 1936),
pp. 2 1 7 -2 1 8 .
6 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 104 - 105, 108.
51
relationship between the three:
We say that the three o f us are brothers. Ven. Bunchuan, Ven. Panvanantha and I
called each other three brothers, because we have the same purpose in life117.

Among the members of Lokanatha’s mission, there was another who was
referred to by Buddhadasa his “brother of the dham m a' . This was then Sämanera Karima
Kusalasai (1920 - ). Karima was going to be fourteen years old when Lokanatha’s group
came to his town in Nakhon Sawan province. Because he was an orphan, he thought
that this tour would give him a better chance for an education abroad. In February 1934
he was ordained as a novice by Lokanatha and joined the world mission118.
When the group split up in Yangon, Karuna followed Lokanatha with about ten
novices to India. Lokanatha took them to Almora, a town in the Indian Himalayas,
where Dr. Jina, a Burmese physician disciple monk of Lokanatha was doing dhamma

practice. Lokanatha left the Thai monks with Dr. Jina and went to Sri Lanka to organise
Sinhalese monks and novices to join his world mission. In the winter, the group had to
move to a warmer place. On their way to Samath, they visited the Buddhist holy places
of Lumbini and Kusinara. In this journey, they had to face difficulties with wild animals
and malaria. After the group’s leader, Dr. Jina, became seriously ill and was taken back
to Burma by his family, most of the remaining Thai disciples of Lokanatha also decided
to return to Thailand. Karuna was the only one who had to stay at the Maha Bodhi
Society in Samath, because he was seriously ill with malaria. When he had recovered,
the secretary-general of the Maha Bodhi Society allowed him to study under their
novice education programme for the world Buddhist mission119.
In India Karuna had an unusual opportunity for Buddhist education as a Thai
novice. From 1935 to 1939, Karuna studied together with Sinhalese monks and novices
at the Maha Bodhi Society in Samath. He learnt Hindi and English from an Indian
teacher with the assistance of a pocketbook edition of McFarland’s English-Thai
Dictionary, and also he leamt Pali using Sinhalese script. His study of Hindi was
assisted by Dr. Bhadanta Ananda Kausalyayana, a famous Indian bhikkhu who

117 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 106. About Panyanantha’s life
and co-operation with Buddhadasa’s activities, see also Chapter II, pp. 98 - 106.
118 Kanina, Chiwit thi luakmai dai, p. 73.
119 Karuna, Chiwit thi luak mai dai, pp. 7 6 - 9 3 .

52
propagated Buddhism in Europe. After two years of study, Karuna got first place in the
Hindi examinations in all India, and he was able to write articles in Hindi journals. In
1938, his Hindi was qualified as equivalent to that of a high school graduate. He also
studied English through a correspondence course from Bennett College in England, and
after four years he received a diploma in English, which was equivalent to the London
Matriculation or Senior Cambridge level. He gave up studying Pali in Sinhalese script
only at the elementary level, because he would be able to study Pali in Thailand. Instead,
he started to learn Sanskrit, which is important for Thai literature and culture, but which
was difficult to study in Thailand. From 1940, Karuna continued his study in
Vishavabharati Shantiniketan University, which was founded by Rabindranath Tagore.
He was majoring in Indology, and studied Sanskrit with Pandit Hazari Prasad
Dwivedi120. The knowledge Karuna acquired in India was, for most Thai Buddhists at
the time, very interesting and difficult to access.
Moreover, before he left Thailand with Lokanatha, Karuna had already studied
to the third year in secondary school, so he was able to translate his new knowledge into
Thai. When he was in the Maha Bodhi Society at Samath, he found two Buddhist
journals there, i.e., Phutthasasana and Tkammachaksu. These Thai journals had been
sent to the Maha Bodhi Society as a companion organisation working for the
propagation of the dhamma. Karuna discovered an interest in the “modern” Buddhism
that Phutthasasana introduced, so in early 1936 he sent a letter to the Khana
Thammathan together with some English books that the Maha Bodhi Society had
published, as well as some writings by Phra Lokanatha, as well as postcards of the
Buddhist sites in India121. Correspondence between Buddhadasa and Karuna began in
this way.
Under the pseudonym, “A Thai sämanera in Samath”, Karuna contributed
eleven articles to Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, from February 1936 to
February 1942122. These articles of Karuna included up-to-date news about Buddhist

120 Karuna, Chiwit thi luak mai dai, pp. 94 - 103.

121 Karuna Kusalasai, Bangkok, 6 and 29 November 1998; “Thalaengkan khana thammathan”
(Announcement by the Khana Thammathan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 4 (February 1936/2478), p.
747.
122 These eleven articles of Karuna were: “Chotmai chak samanen thai nai india” (A letter from a
Thai novice in India), Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 4 (February 1936), pp. 711 - 718; “Ngan chalong
mulakan kutti wihan nai prathet india” (A celebration in India for the foundation of a vihära where
53
movements in India, such as that of Dr. Ambedkar, and translations of either English or
Hindi articles about the history of Buddhism and Buddhism in other traditions. Karuna
not only enriched Buddhadasa’s journal with news and information, but also sent him
English books available in India and connected Buddhadasa to important Indian monks,
such as Ananda Kausalyayana and Rahula. Karuna said that sometimes Buddhadasa
asked Karuna to seek advice from Ananda on a good book about certain Buddhist topics,
Karuna bought the books that Ananda recommended, and sent them to Buddhadasa123.
Karuna’s role would have been very important for Buddhadasa to keep up with
international movements and scholarship.
By the same token, Buddhadasa’s advice and encouragement were very
supportive for Karuna, who was an orphan and a Thai novice alone in India.
Buddhadasa himself also studied Sanskrit and Indian philosophy with Swami
Satyananda Puri, a Hindu scholar who settled in Thailand and often gave lectures in
Thai, but he encouraged Karuna to revive Sanskrit in Thailand and to write a Hindi
language textbook for Thais. Buddhadasa also sent good Thai books to Karuna, and
informed him of recent situation of Buddhism in Thailand, such as Luang Wichit’s
nationalistic thoughts and the conflict between the Thammayut and Mahanikai orders.
Buddhadasa attempted to share ideas on contemporary Thai Buddhism with Karuna
whom he regarded as a co-worker for the same purpose124.
Karuna was also introduced by Buddhadasa to a contact person on the editorial
board of Thammachaksu, to which he contributed four articles from May to October

there used to be a kuti (monk’s hut) used by the Buddha), Vol. 4 No. 1 (May 1936), pp. 59 - 64;
“Khao di thung phuttha mamaka sayam” (Good news for Thai Buddhists), Vol. 4 No. 3 (November
1936), p. 336; “Khao kan-khluang-wai khong phra phutthasasana nai india” (News about Buddhist
movements in India), Vol. 5 No. 1 (May 1937), pp. 122 - 126; “Phra maha wihan phutthakhaya” (A
vihära in Bodhgaya), Vol. 5 No. 2 (August 1937), pp. 194 - 203; “Phutthasasana nai prathet yipun”
(Buddhism in Japan), Vol. 5 No. 4 (February 1938), pp. 341 - 346; “Wanna sut nai india”
(Untouchables in India), Vol. 6 No. 1 (May 1938), pp. 41 - 48; “Phonsawadan khong phra wihan
phutthakhaya” (History of the Bodhgaya Temple), Vol. 6 No. 3 (November 1938), pp. 195 - 202;
“Horyoyi - pathom phuttha wihan khong yipun” (Horyoji - the first temple of Japan), Vol. 7 No. 2
(August 1939), pp. 130 - 138; “Nam thiao namasakan sathan thi saksit nai india” (Visiting holy
places in India), Vol. 8 No. 3 - 4 (November 1940), pp. 183 - 190; “Kan-phoeiphrae phutthasasana”
(Propagation of Buddhism), Vol. 10 No. 1 (February 1942), pp. 93 - 94.
123 Karuna, interview, 29 November 1998.
124 Karuna published the letters from Buddhadasa to commemorate his memory. They are collected
in: Phutthathat ramluk: likhit Than ‘p hutthathat’ thung nong chai doi tham, ‘karuna kusalasai’ (A
memory of Buddhadasa: letters from Ven. Buddhadasa to a younger brother in the dhamrna, Karuna
Kusalasai) (Bangkok: Mae Kham Phang, 1993).
54
19391“5. He also wrote a number of short reports about Buddhist and other movements
in India for a Thai daily newspaper, Prachachat, of which Kulap Saipradit and Malai
Chupinit were the editors. He received the newspapers in return. Karuna brought new
knowledge from India to the intellectual Buddhist community of Thailand.
Unfortunately, he had to terminate this role because of the outbreak of World
War II. As an allied nation of Japan, Thailand declared war against Britain and the
United States on 25 January 1942. On 8 February, Karuna was arrested and sent to a
concentration camp as a citizen of an enemy nation of India’s suzerain state, Britain “ .
Although the war interrupted correspondence between Karuna and Buddhadasa, their
correspondence in all likelihood contributed to the development of Buddhadasa’s
understandings and to his own thoughts on Buddhism.

Sangha elders and academic monks

Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, also received good responses from
academic elders of the Sangha, not just from young progressive monks and novices. In
the 1930s through to the late 1940s, Buddhadasa was given a number of honours by
elder Thammayut monks.
One of the most supportive elders was Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan
(Charoen Yanawaro; 1872 - 1951) at Wat Thepsirin. Charoen was bom in Chonburi
province and studied Thai script at Wat Khao Bang Sai, the temple of Chao Khun
Chonlathopmakhunnamuni (Punnako Phut). The abbot of this Thammayut temple had
good connections with King Mongkut and King Chulalongkom127. When Charoen was
ordained as a novice and studied higher pariyatti dhamma (scriptural studies), he was
introduced to a school at Wat Ratchabophit, whose principal also had connections with a

125 “Phra phutthasasana sun hai pai chak India yang rai?” (How did India lose Buddhism?),
Thammachaksu, Vol. 27 No. 7 (April 1939), pp. 652 - 663; “Phra phutthasasana sun hai pai chak
india yang rai?” (Continued from the previous issue), Vol. 27 No. 8 (May 1939), pp. 748 - 758;
“Mahatma Nichhen”, Vol. 27 No. 10 (July 1939), pp. 935 - 943; “Mahatma Nichiren” (Continued
from the previous issue), Vol. 27 No. 11 (August 1939), pp. 1035 - 1042; “Phra Phutthasasana nai
India patchuban” (Buddhism in present day India), Vol. 28 No. 1 (October 1939), pp. 3 9 - 5 1 .
126 Karuna, Chiwit thi luak mai dai, pp. 104 - 105.
127 Chao Khun Chonlathopmakhunnamuni was once ordained as a monk by the then monk, Prince
Mongkut, who established the Thammayut Order. After he disrobed, he worked for the Office of the
Royal Page. After he retired, he was once again ordained as a monk, and became the abbot of Wat
Khao Bang Sai. When King Chulalongkom travelled in Chonburi, and learnt the background of the
abbot, he promoted the ecclesiastical title of the abbot to the level of phra racha khana (“Prawat

55
 • 128
prince " . After he ordained as a monk in 1902, Charoen came first in every level of the
Pali ecclesiastical examination at Mahamakut Buddhist Academy. Charoen’s ability was
recognised by Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Warorot, and he was appointed to the Pali
school at Wat Thepsirin. In 1908 at the age of twenty-eight, he was also appointed
director of education of Monthon Prachinburi, and in January 1909, he was appointed
abbot of Wat Thepsirin129. After that, he held a number of positions responsible for
ecclesiastical education and examinations, as well as for ecclesiastical administration.
He was highly respected for his devotion to duty and thriftiness, and his sermons at Wat
Thepsirin were very popular among well-educated lay Buddhists in Bangkok . Among
elder monks in the Sangha, he was known as the most progressive and the best
acquainted with Westerners131. In January 1932, he was elected chairperson of the
Elders’ Council, and as acting Supreme Patriarch until 1938lj2.
In June 1937 while Charoen was the acting Supreme Patriarch, Buddhadasa
had the honour to receive a visit from him and have him stay overnight at Suan Mokkh.
Charoen visited there after his inspection trip to the Southern provinces. Buddhadasa
went to welcome him at Surat Thani station and accompanied him to Chaiya station.
Over seventy monks and novices, fifty-two students at the Phuttha Nikhom high school,
of which Thammathat was the principal, and many more people in the region turned out
to welcome him. Charoen gave his books to some of them and gave a pamphlet about
meditation to everyone. However, his leg was not in good shape, he took two hours to

Chao Phra Khun Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan Yanawara Thera”, pp. (1) - (2)).
128 The principal was Phra Khru Winaithonchai, a thananukrom of Phra Ong Chao Phra
Arunniphakkhunakon (“Prawat Chao Phra Khun Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan Yanawara Thera”,
p. (2)). About the meaning of thananukrom, see footnote 48.
29 “Prawat Chao Phra Khun Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan Yanawara Thera”, pp. (3) - (4).
130 “Prawat chao phra khun somdet phra phutthakhosachan yanawara thera”, pp. (17) - (18);
Ubasika Unchit Tirattana, interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999. According to Unchit, who used to be
a high school teacher and later became a co-founder of Suan Usom, or Buddhadasa’s follow ers’
w om en’s place for dhamma practice, Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan (Charoen) directly taught
practical dhammn. Later she read Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, and thought that both the
teachings o f Charoen and Buddhadasa were in the same line. Phra Dunlayaphaksuwaman, one of the
judges who assisted Buddhadasa, also highly respected Charoen as a disciple who had been ordained
by him (Thipphawan Patthomsathan (a daughter of Phra Dunlayaphaksuwaman), interview, 22
August 1998; Phra Pracha,Lao wai ..., p. 221).
131 Phra Pracha, Lao w a i ..., p. 122.
132 After the change o f the Sangha Act in 1941 under the Phibun government, in July 1941 Charoen
became chair o f the ecclesiastical assembly, and in May 1950 he became chair of the ecclesiastical
cabinet. He filled many important positions in the Sangha throughout his life (“Prawat chao phra
khun somdet phra phutthakhosachan yanawara thera”, pp. (4) - (27)).
56
walk the five or six kilometres from the station to Suan Mokkh. Charoen gave a sermon
for two hours, and listeners filled the temple premises. Charoen gave several sets of his
own printed dhamma sermons, poems and Chinese sermons to Suan Mokkh and Khana
Thammathan, and talked with Buddhadasa in the evening and in the following morning.
Through their talk on practice, scriptural study, and translation, Buddhadasa wrote that
he learnt countless new things. He had an impression that Somdet Charoen strictly
adhered to the precepts just like a newly ordained monk who had entered the order
yesterday133. Charoen’s visit was only five years after the establishment of Suan Mokkh
and in the eleventh year for Buddhadasa as a monk. Considering the difference of their
age and status in the Sangha, this was a tremendous honour for Buddhadasa.
After this first visit, Buddhadasa recalled that Charoen had assisted with funds
for Khana Thammathan’s publications, but he had never given special favour to
Buddhadasa’s promotion to ecclesiastical titles or ranks. Every time Buddhadasa went
to Bangkok, he visited Charoen at Wat Thepsirin. Charoen gave Buddhadasa the honour
of conversing in his private room. In their talks, Charoen told Buddhadasa that it was
too early to teach people about anattä (non-self), but he liked to talk to Buddhadasa about
hidden dhamma as he understood it. Charoen expected Buddhadasa to propagate his
ideas of the dhamma, because Buddhadasa was able to express things clearly.
Buddhadasa sometimes wrote about Charoen’s unusual interpretations in his journal,
and was even criticised by other elder monks. Buddhadasa did not always agree with
Charoen, but these were not very serious difficulties. He never brought up his
disagreements to argue with Charoen. Charoen called Buddhadasa “Maha Nguam, he
who fits with my character”134.
Charoen’s personal background suggests that he played a role as a promoter of
Wachirayan’s reform of ecclesiastical education. Buddhadasa was also inspired by
Wachirayan’s textbooks and sermons as being innovative for the new era. Based on the
common ground of basic doctrinal understanding, which was standardised by the
uniform textbooks and examinations, both Charoen and Buddhadasa were pursuing
religion at deeper levels. From the point of view of a Sangha elder, such as Charoen,

133 “Somdet phra phutthakhosachan yiam lae phak raem nai suan mok” (Somdet Phra
Phutthakhosachan visited and stayed overnight at Suan Mokkh), Phutthasasana, Vol. 5 No. 2
(August 1937), pp. kho. - cho.; Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 187.

57
Buddhadasa’s interpretation was not perceived as “deviant” (diarathi), but rather as a
good attempt. Beyond the level of the standard formulae, there was room to be explored.
At this level, people had freedom of individual interpretation, and their opinions did not
always coincide. Charoen, as a high level elder of the Sangha, had few chances to be
overtly criticised, while Buddhadasa, who could perform individual activities in a
province, was more open to public discussion of his own ideas. Buddhadasa was always
ready to face up to disagreements in the Buddhist public sphere, in which people could
express their own understandings, which differed from the standard formulae of the
modem ecclesiastical education system.
Buddhadasa also had intellectual exchanges with academic monks at
Mahamakut Buddhist Academy, the then most advanced academic institute for
Buddhism in Siam. In 1937, the Academy adopted Buddhadasa work, Phuttha prawat
chak phra ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words), as a textbook for the
Academy’s students . Phra Maha Thongsup (Suphamak), the head of the textbook
bureau of the Academy, was a good academic friend of Buddhadasa. Buddhadasa said
that they probably knew each other through the journal, Phutthasasana. Buddhadasa
bought an extra copy of Communism in the Home Library series for Thongsup to read.
He explained that because communism was then well-known as an enemy of Buddhism,
they should have some knowledge of it, and he wanted to know what Thongsup would
think136.
Apart from their intellectual communication, Buddhadasa was introduced
through Thongsup to another elder monk in the Sangha, Somdet Phra Wachirayanawong,
the Supreme Patriarch and the chair of the committee of Mahamakut Buddhist Academy
residing at Wat Bowonniwet. The Somdet often visited the textbook bureau at
Mahamakut in the evening to talk with monks working there. Thongsup spoke of Suan
Mokkh to the Somdet before Buddhadasa’s meeting with him. When Buddhadasa was
accused of being a communist by Phra Thipparinya, this Somdet did not even take the

134 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 383 - 386.

135 Thongsup told Buddhadasa to expand the book by investigating more about the social conditions
in India contemporary with the Buddha. Buddhadasa felt the he had clearer understandings in the
topic when he visited India in 1955, but by then Thongsup had already disrobed. At that time,
Buddhadasa’s work at Suan Mokkh did not allow him to seclude himself to write a book, so the book
was left incomplete, only a chapter of the book was done (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 300).
136 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 301 - 302.
58
matter seriously, but said instead, “I would like to stay with you at Suan Mokkh. Here it
is too busy”137. Through a suggestion of Thongsup, the Somdet even bought the
complete set of the Tipitaka for Suan Mokkh, because up to then Buddhadasa could only
afford to buy twenty volumes of it, and he had to borrow the rest from Wat Boromathat
Chaiya, a noted historical temple in Chaiya .
Buddhadasa had few troubles with Sangha elders about his own doctrinal
interpretations. At the beginning of his activities, these elder Thammayut monks were
supportive of Buddhadasa. Another Thammayut elder, Phra Sasanasophon (Plot) at Wat
Rachathiwat, also defended Buddhadasa from Phra Thipparinya’s accusation, and
assisted in Buddhadasa’s promotion to ecclesiastical titles and administrational
appointments, such as to the head of the Propagation Unit (Ongkan Phoeiphae) of Surat
Thani province, and of the fifth region, under the 1941 Sangha Act139. Buddhadasa also
had a good relationship with an elder in the Mahanikai Order, Phra Phimolatham (At) at
Wat Mahathat, by whom he was given the honour of giving a speech at the sixth council
in Burma as a representative of the Thai Sangha. Buddhadasa’s ability was recognised
by these elders in the Sangha. Rather than to the Sangha elders, Buddhadasa’s
originality of interpretation became rather controversial for other participants in the
Buddhist public sphere, which was becoming more and more active from the 1930s
onwards up to the middle of the century.

Lav elite intellectuals

Through the print media, Buddhadasa also became acquainted with and started
personal correspondence with lay intellectuals. As important figures for Buddhadasa’s
early development of his thought, at least two judges who had studied abroad should be
mentioned, Sanya Dhammasakdi and Phraya Latphlithammaprakhan (Wong Latphli).
Sanya Dhammasakdi (1907 - ), who is known for having the trust of the
present king, King Bhumibol, who selected and appointed him to be interim Prime
Minister after the 14 October uprising in 1973, and also to the chair of the Privy Council,
actually has had a significant role in Buddhist circles. While Sanya was studying law in

137 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 301.

138 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 463.
139 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 371 - 372. About the position o f the Propagation Unit under the

59
London from 1930 to 1933, he was excited to find that many Western people were
interested in Buddhism at the British Maha Bodhi Society. He also attended dhamma

lectures every week. The method of teaching the dhamma as a lecture seems to have been

interesting to Sanya, perhaps in contrast with Thai monks’ solemn sermons which were

read from a Pali text in bailan and given from the higher preaching seat in the

monastery hall. Sanya wrote an article about the activities of the British Maha Bodhi

and published it in Thai khasaem ruam khao, a weekly newspaper in Thailand.

Eventually Buddhadasa read Sanya’s article and sent a letter to him in London. In the

letter, Buddhadasa introduced the activities of the Khana Thammathan, which was

effective in propagating the principle of the dhamma directly to the people. Sanya felt

that this should be a new attempt, which was different from ordinary monks, and he also

replied to Buddhadasa140. Even before reading Sanya’s article, Buddhadasa would have

had the idea of dhamma propagation through reading the English journals of international

Buddhist movements, and he had already put it into practice in the Khana Thammathan.

Sanya also found a similar enthusiasm to Buddhadasa for the propagation of the dhamma

by his direct participation in the activities of the British Maha Bodhi Society in London.

This experience of Sanya became an impulse for him to lead the lay Buddhist activities
of the Buddhist Association of Thailand, which he, together with other elite bureaucrats

in higher positions, helped to establish after his return from England. The two Thai

intellectual Buddhists had parallel interests in dhamma propagation but came to it

through different paths.

Sanya and Buddhadasa met each other for the first time around the end of 1933

or the beginning of 1934. When Phra Lokanatha, the Italian monk who organised the

world Buddhist mission, gave a public lecture at Wat Bowonniwet in order to call for

participants, Sanya, who had just returned from England and was interested in

Buddhism, acted as interpreter. From the audience one young monk asked many

questions of Lokanatha about his philosophy of the world mission. In the end,

Lokanatha saw that the monk had asked good questions so he must be very interested in

the propagation of Buddhism. Lokanatha asked the young monk to join his tour. The

1941 Sangha Act, see Ishii, Sangha, state, and society, p. 105.
140 Suksanti Chirachariyawet (ed.), 7 rop achan sanya (Seventh twelve-year cycle [i.e., eighty-four
years] of Achan Sanya) (Bangkok: Mulanithi nitthisat, Mahawitthayalai thammasat, 1991), p. 141.
60
young monk smiled and said he would prefer to work in Thailand first. After the
question and answer, the young monk introduced himself to Sanya, as the one who had
sent the letter in England141.
After this first meeting, the relationship between Sanya and Buddhadasa
became important for each other’s activities. Sanya invited Buddhadasa into his circles,
such as the Buddhist Association of Thailand and the Ministry of Justice as a lecturer to
teach Buddhism for new trainee judges. Both institutions were socially regarded as elite,
and Buddhadasa was considered appropriate to teach those highly educated bureaucrats
and notables. Contrary to the old days when monks and temples were respected as
holders of knowledge, in the twentieth century lay people in the secular world became
much better educated than those who spent their lives in monasteries. Many monks felt
hesitant to teach lay elites, because their knowledge was insufficient. Buddhadasa was
one of the few monks who could teach religious messages, which have no equivalents in
secular areas of study. Instead of just performing the conventional rituals, Buddhadasa
investigated Pali scriptures and English works on Buddhism and adapted his
understandings of Buddhism for people to apply to their lives. Sanya, who perceived the
relevance of Buddhist teachings to lay social life and who actually was part of the elite,
helped connect Buddhadasa to new audiences. In other words, Sanya opened up more
channels for Buddhadasa to play his role in the Buddhist public sphere.
The other important lay intellectual associate of Buddhadasa was Phraya
Latphlithammaprakhan (Wong Latphli; 1894 - 1968)142. Before knowing Buddhadasa,
Phraya Latphli had already had a successful career as an elite judge. From 1913 to 1917,
he studied at the City of London College. In 1917 he returned in Thailand and passed as
first class barrister-at-law at the top of his class. By the time he read Buddhadasa’s
journal in 1933, he was already the director of the criminal court and foreign case court,
as well as the director of the appeal court. Towards the end of his career as a judge, in
1941 he became president of the Supreme Court, and from 1953 to 1957 he was
appointed Minister of Justice in the cabinet of Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram. As a
judge in responsible positions, he had a much higher salary than other government

141
Suksanti, 7 rop achan sanya, pp. 141 - 142.
142
In the follow ing, I w ill call him by the shortened form, Phraya Latphli.
61
officials did143.

From the viewpoint of Sanya Dhammasakdi, who studied law with Phraya

Latphli (then his bandasak was Phra Inthapanya: 1922 - 1928; he was conferred the

title of Phraya from August 1928), everyone admired him as a smart, energetic teacher

who had just accomplished his study in England. He was known as an excellent tennis

player, and even received trophies as a golf player, because of his personality to practise

eagerly until he was proficient. With the same energy, Sanya wrote that Phraya Latphli

pursued studying and practising the dhamma144.

Buddhadasa called Phraya Latphli “the firstborn comrade among all the folks

in the Khana Thammathan” (.sahai thammathan khon hua p i haeng chao khana

thammathan thang lai), or “the number one comrade of the Khana Thammathan”. The

intellectual exchanges with Phraya Latphli were what Buddhadasa considered the most

important for his thought and activities. Phraya Latphli was one of the first lay elite

intellectuals who supported the activities at Suan Mokkh. Buddhadasa recalled:

... when we started the activities of the Khana Thammathan and Suan Mokkh, [our
activities were looked on] suspiciously, as those of such crazy people as Narin
Klung, who was working about the same time, because everything [we did] was out
of the ordinary, and of the nature that they did not believe that we could do.
However, [Phraya Latphli] held out a helping hand when he knew about us, even
from the very first year of the tri-monthly journal, Phutthasasana, which was
launched in 1933145.

Phraya Latphli even offered to work for the Khana Thammathan’s dhanuna propagation

activities by throwing away his career as a returnee from overseas education and as an

elite bureaucrat. Buddhadasa replied that the activities were not so great for someone to

do such a thing. Instead of putting this idea into practice, Phraya Latphli became the

best friend for Buddhadasa to discuss his thinking with and the best supporter of the

Khana Thammathan and Suan Mokkh146. In terms of material support, Phraya Latphli

14j “Prawat phraya latphlithammaprakhan”, Khana thammathan lae phu thi khaorop nai khunnatham
khong phraya latphlithammaprakhan (The Khana Thammathan and a group which respect the moral
principles of Phraya Latphlithammaprakhan) (ed.), Mahawitthayalai chiwit khong phutthathat
phikkhu, panya nai phutthasasana nikai sen khong khun prachak (A university of life by
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, and Insight in the Zen School of Buddhism by Khun Prachak) (A cremation
volume for Phraya Latphlithammaprakhan, 19 September 1968), pp. ko. - tho.
144 Sanya Thammasak (Sanya Dhammasakdi), “Kham ramluk” (A note of memory), Anuson nai
ngan sadet phra ratch damnoen phra ratcha than phloeng sop: phraya latphlithammaprakhan
(wong latphli) (Commemoration for the cremation: Phraya Latphlithammaprakhan (Wong Latphli))
(19 September 1968).
145 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana” (Blessing), Khana Thammathan et al., Mahawitthayalai
chiwit khong Phutthathat Phikkhu ..., p. (4).
146 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, pp. (4) - (5).
62
funded the construction of enough kuti for the increasing numbers of monks at Suan
Mokkh, he provided robes for each monk, and also brown sugar every month for monks
there to drink in the evening. His financial support was helpful for Suan Mokkh, which
otherwise was started only with the savings of Buddhadasa’s and Thammathat’s
mother147.
In 1938, Phraya Latphli first visited Suan Mokkh together with his judicial
colleagues, Phraya Pharotratchasuphit (Choi Hemachan; 1885 - 1970) and Sanya
Dhammasakdi148. This was only a year after the visit of Phra Phutthakhosachan
(Charoen), and was one of the first occasions for Buddhadasa to receive a visit from lay
elite intellectuals from Bangkok149. Buddhadasa commented that these three were all
good readers of his works and the journal, Phutthasasana, and inspired by Phraya
Latphli, good readers increased150.
Phraya Latphli was also very important for Buddhadasa’s intellectual
development. Every time Phraya Latphli bought books, he bought two copies: one for
himself and the other for Buddhadasa. For example, he bought the books of
Krishnamurti, and the Complete Works of Vivekananda, who was the teacher of Swami
Satyananda Puri, a renowned Hindu scholar settled in Thailand151. Also, Phraya Latphli
introduced Buddhadasa to famous religious teachers in Bangkok, such as Phra
Phatthanta Wilasa, a Burmese Abhidhamma teacher, and Swami Satyananda Puri, with
whom Buddhadasa discussed Vedanta philosophy and the history of Indian philosophy,
also perhaps through whom he studied Sanskrit152.
Moreover, Buddhadasa’s translations of the Zen books, the Sutra of Wei Lang
and The Zen teaching of Huang Po, became famous, these books were first introduced

147 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 184; Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, p. (5).
148 Phraya Pharotratchasuphit (in the following I will call him in short, Phraya Pharot) was also an
important member of the Buddhist Association of Thailand. He was the Association’s president and
vice-president several times. He is also known as the first contemporary Thai to write a book on
vegetarianism through the influence of Phra Lokanatha (Thammabannakan nai ngan phra ratcha
than phoeng sop phraya pharotratchasuphitthammaphiwitthepsuphabodi (choi hemachan) (A
writing on the dhamma at the cremation of Phraya Pharotratchasuphit (Choi Hemachan)) (1970);
Phraya Pharotratchasuphit, Witthi prakop ahan mangsawirat (Recipes for vegetarian dishes)
(Bangkok: Chomrom Phim Thammathan Pao Keng Teng)).
149 Phra Pracha,Lao wai ..., p. 196.
130 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, p. (6).
131 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 389, 515.
132 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, p. (6); Phutthathat ramluk, pp. 33, 41, 45; Phra Pracha,
Lao wai ..., pp.509 - 512, 515 - 517.
63
to him by Phraya Latphli. At first, Buddhadasa said that he was not capable of
translating an English book, but Phraya Latphli insisted that Buddhadasa could do it. He
told Buddhadasa that the English in the book Sutra of Wei Lang, was quite easy, but to
have the right interpretation was difficult. He said that because the book had ordinary
words and sentences but with deep meanings, it could not be translated properly without
an understanding of the true dhamma . Phraya Latphli encouraged Buddhadasa to
translate and publish all the chapters as a series in Phutthasasana. In order to make it
more easily for Buddhadasa, Phraya Latphli made a draft translation of the first chapter,
and let Buddhadasa edit it and continue the rest by himself154. Buddhadasa further
checked his translation with a Chinese Zen Buddhist preacher, Tan Mo Siang. Tan Mo
Siang even indicated the mistranslation present in the English translation by Wong
Mu-lam from the original Chinese. Buddhadasa adopted the original meaning of the
Chinese text that Tan Mo Siang suggested in his translation into Thai155.
According to Buddhadasa, what Phraya Latphli wanted was
... the “dhamma”, not Buddhism. Studying Buddhism was [for Phraya Latphli] to
acquire or to reach what is called the “ dhamma”, which does not belong to any
particular religion156.

Phraya Latphli was especially interested in Krishnamurti, who, according to

Buddhadasa,

... taught the dhamma which is a salvation for human beings by not necessarily
concerned with religion, [so] ultimately abolish attachment to any religion, ideology,
association, or groups15 .

Because of the influence of Krishnamurti, Phraya Latphli’s understanding of

Buddhism was unique. Buddhadasa explained his understanding as follows:
To sink deep into the liberal/liberated ideas, just as the thought of Krishnamurti,
was the foundation of thought and desire of the mind or spirit of [Phraya Latphli].
[It was also] used in the search for the “dhamma” of Buddhism, which is not limited
to Theraväda, Mahäyäna, or others, which were reformed as Zen Buddhism and so
on158.

These characteristics of Phraya Latphli’s understandings of Buddhism,

religious teachings, and the dhamma would have been shared with Buddhadasa.

153
Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 501.
154
Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, pp. (3) - (4).
155
Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp.501 -5 0 2 .
156
Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, p. (8).
157
Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, p. (8).
158
Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, pp. (8) - (9).
64
Buddhadasa's leap from the Theravada Buddhist scriptures to his own integration of
various ideas in other schools of Buddhism and other religions must have been rooted in
the intellectual exchanges with Phraya Latphli. In this way, Buddhadasa’s thought was
enriched by non-Theraväda schools and consequently also became controversial for Thai
Buddhists.
Phraya Latphli and Buddhadasa seem to have been excited to talk with each
other about these topics. Buddhadasa said that they wrote letters every week for many
years, and when Buddhadasa went to Bangkok, they escaped from other visitors to talk
just by themselves139. Although unfortunately their letters seem to have already been
lost when Buddhadasa wrote his memoir of Phraya Latphli when the latter died in 1968,
their intellectual exchanges were most significant for the development of Buddhadasa’s
thought. Phraya Latphli was one of the most important discussants discovered by
Buddhadasa in the Buddhist public sphere through publishing his journal. Also, based
on the inspiration from their discussions, Buddhadasa further nurtured his own thoughts
and expressed them to the public.

In this chapter, I have examined important background for and experiences of

Buddhadasa in the early twentieth century, especially up to the late 1930s. By this time
Buddhadasa’s intellectual interests were growing, the education in basic doctrine
prevailed, and he had critical opinions about the current situation of Buddhism. Also,
the development of print media and the overseas experience of some privileged
bureaucrats brought the ideas about non-traditional approaches to Buddhism in
international Buddhist movements. Among educated Thai individuals there was a
growing demand for understanding and the practical applications of the dhamma to
everyday life. Buddhadasa’s family members, including his uncle, brother and himself
were also in this current. Buddhadasa and his brother, Thammathat, developed their
intellectual concerns in their respective circles through expressing and discussing their
opinions with their friends. The two brothers found interests in Buddhism through their
separate experiences, and they supported each other in the activities of Buddhism as
monk and as layman. In particular, their co-operation in the publication of the journal,

159
Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana”, p. (7).
65
Phutthasasana, was most significant for dhamma propagation in the Buddhist public
sphere. As a result, Buddhadasa led the contemporary Thai Buddhist world as a

progressive intellectual monk, and he was supported in this by both academic elders in

the Sangha and lay elite intellectuals. In response to the journal, Buddhadasa acquired

important associates who inspired him in his intellectual pursuits.

At the same time, the inspiration that Buddhadasa gave to the Thai Buddhist

public encouraged people to assist Buddhadasa’s teaching to become widely

disseminated in society. In the next chapter, I will trace these propagation activities.

66
Chapter II Propagation of the dhamma by Buddhadasa’s followers

As I have examined in the previous chapter, Buddhadasa developed his

intellectual concerns inspired by interactions taking place in his contemporary public
sphere. More opportunities to contact different ideas were made available to
Buddhadasa by the development of scriptural studies and education for Thai monks and
lay Buddhists, by the growing demand to participate in authentic Buddhist practice
among the laity, and by communications with international Buddhist movements. Even
though Buddhadasa was bom and spent most of his time in a provincial town, Chaiya,
he consistently acquired new information and ideas, especially in exchanges with close
relatives, such as his uncle and brother, who had more opportunities to contact the
literate classes in Bangkok. Buddhadasa became involved in the Buddhist public sphere
through his writings in the journal Phutthasasana, which he and his brother started
publishing as a part of the activities of the Khana Thammathan in 1933.
Some of the readers of Buddhadasa were profoundly impressed and indebted to
his teaching for providing a meaning to their life. They chose to dedicate some of their
wealth and energy to propagate his teaching further for the benefit of others. Through
those dedicated lay followers who respected his teaching as the very dhamma or the
essential teaching of Buddhism, Buddhadasa became more and more widely known to
the people at large. This chapter will examine the development of the propagation of
Buddhadasa’s teaching by his followers.
In order to spread religious concerns from the small discussion groups around
him to the broader society, Buddhadasa and his followers relied on mass communication
which developed remarkably in Thailand after the mid-nineteenth century. One of the
most significant tools for propagation was the print media, in particular journals and
small pocketbooks for free distribution. In Thailand, it is common to donate money for
the publishing of some hundreds or thousands of copies of a book to be distributed for
free at a commemorative occasion, particularly at a cremation or anniversary. In a
cremation volume, the deceased person’s biography in brief and condolence messages
are published together with a narrative, which the deceased person or the chief mourner
considers beneficial for everyone to find out about. Sermons of monks are most often
chosen for a cremation volume, probably because sermons can give a didactic
67
instruction, to nurture morality and insight. Such publication and distribution of
commemorative books in turn contributes to the propagation of the message of
Buddhism, and also is a major part of the marketing of a publisher who specialises in
dhamma books1. Some followers of certain monks or lay teachers occasionally donate
money for publishing sermons for free distribution, and some with a very strong
dedication to their master even establish a publishing and printing house in order to
publish their master’s books and so propagate their teaching more widely. Publishing by
individual followers significantly contributes to a wider distribution of a preacher’s
works. This is also the case for the propagation of Buddhadasa’s sermons.
When people were impressed by a sermon in one of Buddhadasa’s books,
which were either sold or freely distributed, small discussion groups emerged outside
the personal circle of the preacher. These small groups are formed at dhamma
bookshops, among students, and among colleagues at work. Through an inspiration
from Buddhadasa, some of them have further developed as associations of Buddhism
which have programmes and activities of their own. Their activities include not only
publishing booklets for free distribution or at a low cost, but also inviting Buddhadasa
and other preachers for dhamma lectures, organising public panel discussions at temples,
and giving public speeches to transmit particular ideas of Buddhadasa that they have
understood.
In Thailand the oral aspect of the dhamma propagation is as significant as
publication of journals and booklets on the dhamma. Not only did Buddhadasa train
himself as a preaching monk before even publishing his journals and books, but also
oral propagation continued to be promoted by new technologies, such as radio and
television broadcasting, as well as cassette tapes and CDs. The role of cassette tapes of
sermons is particularly important for the propagation of preaching by Thai monks and
lay teachers. Even though Buddhadasa was an intellectual monk who was able to write
books, some of his audience preferred to receive his message orally rather than through
written or published works. In the case of less educated monks and lay teachers who

1 According to Bancha Chaloemchaikit, the owner of the publishing house, Samnakphim

Sukkhaphap Chai (Mind Health), which specialises in books on health, language textbooks, and
dhamma books, especially by Buddhadasa, the books on the dhamma are sold the most, because
people order them as cremation volumes (Bancha Chaloemchaikit, interview, Bangkok, 1 August
1998).
68
were unable to write books, the role of the cassette tape was particularly significant to
propagate their ideas. The sermon cassette tapes are sold at each individual preacher’s
monastery, and also in cassette shops, which specifically deal with many famous
preachers’ tapes. Direct utterance is a very effective way to transmit the power of a
preacher’s message.
Through these mass communication technologies, Buddhadasa’s innovative
idea of Buddhism was propagated to a wider audience in Thai society. In this chapter, I
will trace the expansion of the propagation of Buddhadasa’s teaching by his lay
supporters. First of all, I will examine the journal, Phutthasasana, which Buddhadasa
and his brother, Thammathat, published as a part of the activities of the Khana
Thammathan. Then, I will explore the propagation of the dhamma that was expressed
by Buddhadasa through lay groups independent of the Khana Thammathan. Among
many groups around Buddhadasa I will focus on three groups that represent three
important characters. One is the Buddhist Association of Thailand, which has been led
by Sanya Dhammasakdi, a pious lay disciple of Buddhadasa, and it had a significant
role in transmitting the dhamma, especially among the elite and intellectuals in Bangkok.
Next is the group of Wat Umong in Chiang Mai, which is headed by Chao Chun Sirorot,
and which stands for the propagation of the dhamma in the other provinces where
distinctive local practice of Buddhism existed. Last is the circle of the Sublime Life
Mission, which is organised by Wirot Siriat, together with its fellow associations run by
Pun Chongprasoet and Sawai Kaewsom. Through the propagation effort of the last
group, Buddhadasa’s teaching spread more to the masses.

1. The journal Phutthasasana

The propagation of the dhamma by Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan

started with the journal Phutthasasana. It has been published every three months from
May 1933 with an official permit for publication. In order to distribute a newly
launched journal, the Khana Thammathan made an advertisement and had printed a free
distribution coupon for their publication in the weekly journal, Thai khasaem ruam

69
khao~. The first issue of Phutthasasana was distributed free to the 133 people who
responded to the Khana Thammathan with the free coupon and stamp, and the second
issue was also sent to those fourteen people who were too late for the first distribution23.
The journal, Phutthasasana, which was at first distributed free, was in the
beginning usually printed in 1,000 copies. The number of copies printed increased to a
peak of 2,500 during Buddhadasa’s lifetime4. The journal was mailed to subscribers,
and payment was made by money order. In order to reduce the cost of sending money
orders, the Khana Thammathan contracted with shops in other provinces to become
payment agents, such as in Bangkok, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Si Thammarat,
Songkhla, and Phisanulok5. The provincial agent shops had expanded by November
1933 to seven altogether including the ones in Roi Et and Chonburi. According to the
advertisements of these shops in Phutthasasana, most of the agents, through which
Phutthasasana attempted distribution, were textbook shops. They dealt with textbooks
for schools and monasteries, and with foreign language books in the provinces. In
Bangkok the Mahamakut Buddhist Academy’s bookshop also retailed their journal, but
not many were sold.
Apart from the mail order subscribers, many copies of Phutthasasana were
ordered by wealthy, faithful readers for free distribution to propagate the dhamma.
Copies of the journal were preferred for distribution at cremation and other memorial
ceremonies, as part of merit making customs in contemporary Thailand. Since journal
publishing was a non-profit-seeking activity of the Khana Thammathan, such big orders
for distribution were an important contribution both in terms of finance and spreading
the message.
The journal Phutthasasana was read by Thai students in foreign countries, such
as Britain, India, China, and the Philippines6, as seen in some article contributors’

2 The wife of the owner of Thai khasaem, Khun Ying Khachaseni, was from the Chaiya area, and
married a man with the title of Phraya. Thammathat contacted the owner of Thai khasaem to place
the advertisement for his journal, and the Thai khasaem agreed to publish the free coupon of
Phutthasasana (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 212).
3 “Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 2 (August 1933), p. 57.
4 According to Metta Phanit, the youngest son of Thammathat who is now responsible for the
Mulanithi Thammathan (Dhammadana Foundation), the journal Phutthasasana is most recently
published in 5,000 copies, and retailed in bookshops through book distributors (Metta Phanit,
interview, 4 March 1999).
3 “Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 2 (August 1933), p. 58.
6 “Chotmai naksuksa num: chak nakrian thai nai muang manila (Philippines)” (A letter of a young
70
background. Thammathat seems to have sent some copies to the Maha Bodhi Society in
Calcutta so that Samanera Karuna Kusalasai, then a Thai novice who was studying in
India, could read and contribute to the journal Phutthasasana1. Other Thai students
abroad seem to have read copies of the journal that their family in Thailand sent to them.
Such famous intellectuals as Samak Burawat, a scientist and Marxist philosopher, and
Sot Kuramarohit, a socialist thinker, were inspired by the journal and produced some
works and articles related to Buddhism while they were in Britain and China
respectively**8. These responses from highly educated Thai students abroad indicate the
good academic standard of the journal that was worth reading overseas.
The distribution of the journal suggests the geographical extent where the
journal was circulated and read. Even though Buddhadasa and his brother were in a
provincial town in Southern Thailand where they wrote, edited and printed their articles,
they could communicate with an intellectual audience all over the country and abroad
through publishing their journal. The journal itself was a very public space for Buddhist
discussion which Buddhadasa and the Khana Thammathan created for Thai intellectuals
in 1933, a year after the Constitutional Revolution.
Phutthasasana is probably one of the best materials to study the development
of Buddhadasa’s thoughts, because series of his articles have been collected
chronologically from the beginning. However, Buddhadasa did not create his unique,
original ideas alone without any relationship to the discussions of other Buddhist
intellectuals. Buddhadasa’s intellectual position should become clear when his works in
Phutthasasana are compared with the discussions of Buddhist intellectuals in which
Buddhadasa himself was involved. Among various places where discussions on
Buddhism took place, panel discussions, lecture gatherings, and publications, the

student: from a Thai student in Manila (Philippines)), Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 3 (November 1934),
^>p. 354 - 357.
Karuna contributed eleven articles from August 1935 to May - August 1942. See footnote 122,
Chapter I.
8 Samak Burawat was inspired by Phutthasasana, and wrote Phutthapratchaya athibai dual
witthayasat (Buddhist philosophy explained by science) (Bangkok: Rongphim song tham, 1937)
while he was studying in England (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 554; Samak Burawat, “Suan mokkha-
phalaram”, Ha sip p i suan mok: phak nung mua khao phut thung rao (Fifty years of Suan Mokkh:
Part I When they spoke of us) (Bangkok: Suan usom mulanithi, 1982), p. 1157). Sot Kuramarohit
contributed three articles in Phutthasasana: “Top a’ngun on ruang kanbuat” (Answering A’ngun On
about ordination), Vol. 2 No. 4 (February 2477/1935), pp. 418 - 430; “Chotmai naksuksa num” (A
letter of a student), Vol. 3 No. 1-2 (May-August 1936), pp. 469 - 476; and “Anatta kap atta”

71
sequence of Buddhist journals are a good record of the history of ideas among Thai
Buddhists. Through an analysis of major Buddhist journals including Phutthasasana,
discussion trends in contemporary Thai Buddhism and the ideological position of
Buddhadasa will be revealed.
From 1933 to the end of the World War II, there were three major journals
particularly discussing Buddhism in Thailand, apart from Thalaengkan Khana Song, the
journal of the Sangha’s official announcements. Those three included, Mahamakut
Buddhist Academy’s Thammachaksu, the Khana Thammathan’s Phutthasasana, and the
Buddhist Association of Thailand’s Phuttha-tham (Buddha dhamma). Thammachaksu
and Phutthasasana were coincidentally (re-) started in 1933, and Phuttha-tham was
begun in 1934. In terms of academic standards, Thammachaksu and Phutthasasana
were more important than Phuttha-tham until the end of World War II. Every book and
journal had to reduce their print-run toward the end of the war, because paper for
publishing books became very expensive and difficult to find. In order to examine the
development of Buddhadasa’s thoughts in the context of his contemporary discussion of
Buddhism, I will compare Thammachaksu and Phutthasasana until the late 1950s.
From 1933 up until the 1950s and throughout World War II, the two Buddhist
academic journals, Thammachaksu and Phutthasasana, created the major intellectual
currents of Buddhism in Thailand. Although both offered opportunities for intellectual
exchanges that together created a discussion space, they had their own distinctive
characteristics in basic structure and contents. Thammachaksu contained articles such as
translations of Pali scriptures into Thai, transcribed sermons, essays, award winning
questions on the dhamma, and news. On the other hand, Phutthasasana was originally
constructed of three parts: pak khwam-ru thua pai (general knowledge), which included
articles, award winning dhamma questions and news, pak traipidok plae ( Tipitaka
translation), and pak songsoem patibat tham {dhamma practice promotion).
At first glance, both had a section of Pali Tipitaka translation, but their
orientations were quite different. Thammachaksu intended to translate all the Pali
scriptures little by little through their series of translations*9, whereas the Pali translation

(Non-self and self), Vol. 3 No. 4 (February 2478/1937), pp. 701 - 710.
9 Phra Maha Thongsup Charuwanno, “Thalaengkan buang ton”, Thammachaksu, Vol. 22 No. 2
(November 1936), pp. ko. - kho.
72
section of Phutthasasana selected special verses of wit and epigrams usually confined
in the inaccessible world of Pali. Buddhadasa’s selections included harsh criticism
against corrupted practices of monks and their incomplete insight into the dhamma,
such criticism already existed within the Buddhist scriptures. Buddhadasa drew
attention to the dhamma in Pali scriptures for non-Pali specialist Buddhists to apply
either for their ordained or lay lives, without them needing to read all the scriptural texts
to find this.
Second, in Thammachaksu, there was little concern with the aspect of practice,
whilst Phutthasasana provided a special section for it. For the section promoting
dhamma practice, Buddhadasa translated and edited verses from the Pali Tipitaka which
related to the practice for overcoming suffering to reach perfect sainthood. The series of
this section was named, Tam roi phra arahan (Following the footprints of the arahant),

and became one of the first recognised works of Buddhadasa. Similarly, though
published in the scripture translation section, Buddhadasa wrote Phuttha prawat chak
phra ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words), in which he translated and edited the
Buddha’s life of dhamma practice in order to reach enlightenment. Even though
Buddhadasa did not have any particular meditation teacher to study with, unlike the
case of forest monks in Northeastern Thailand, he examined the methods that were
documented in the Pali scriptures. Just like those academic monks who contributed to
Thammachaksu, he started as a scholarly pariyatti monk by studying Pali and reading as
many books as he could find. However, what he found in the scriptural studies was the
practise of vipassanä meditation as a forest monk, an element of Buddhism ignored by the
pariyatti monks in Bangkok. Buddhadasa’s special role was in this regard. The academic
monks in Mahamakut Buddhist Academy and the elders in the Sangha were found to
acknowledge that Buddhadasa had rediscovered the reputation of vipassanä meditation in
Pali scriptures.
Third, in the sections of general articles and sermons, in the beginning the two
journals had distinctive characters. For a couple of years after Thammachaksu was
re-launched in October 1933, this section in Thammachaksu was dominated by the
transcribed or written sermons of monks. In this tendency of Thammachaksu, which
was set in place by academic monks, there was little place for lay Buddhists to express
their opinions. If any lay people were involved, they were likely to have been formerly
73
ordained and to have passed ecclesiastical examinations. In this context, lay Buddhists
needed to obey the authority of Buddhist academics, otherwise they might merely pay
respect to the sacred sermons in a printed form. On the other hand, Phutthasasana was
not only run by an ordained person, Buddhadasa, but also by his lay brother,
Thammathat. Thammathat expressed his excitement and concerns in Buddhism as a lay
Buddhist with a higher education in secular society. Thammathat had a column called
“Samrap naksuksa num” (For young students) in order to show how the teachings of
Buddhism can help the life of young intellectuals who lived outside monasteries, but
who were going to be leaders of the country. For example, Thammathat argued that the
four ariya sacca (four noble truths: suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of
suffering, and the way to the cessation of suffering), are a necessary study for human
beings, because other subjects in school never teach this10. In this way of presentation,
the journal Phutthasasana directly responded to concerns of lay Buddhist intellectuals
as well.
Another distinctive character of the general section of Phutthasasana in
contrast with Thammachaksu was a wealth of information about Buddhist movements in
foreign countries, which centred on the concerns of newly converted Western Buddhists
with an educated background. Thammachaksu only started reporting some news after
October 1936 and publishing translations of foreign language articles after September
1937. Although Thammachaksu extensively introduced translations of foreign authors’
articles from The Maha Bodhi journal after 1937, the translated articles became limited
in number by the end of 1942. An opening announcement in the January 1942 issue
suggests that there seemed to be some dissatisfaction from a conservative faction about
having many translated articles by foreigners*11. On the other hand, Phutthasasana had
competent translates of English articles, such as Thammathat in the first few years,
Bhikkhu Bunchuan Khemaphirat, who returned from Lokanatha’s tour in India, and
Samanera Karuna Kusalasai, who contributed from the Maha Bodhi Society in Samath.

10 Thammathat, “Samrap naksuksa num”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 2 (August 1933), p. 39.
11 The announcement did not openly say that there existed some opposing opinions against foreign
articles, but it attempted to explain the editorial policy of including various kinds of articles, such as
scriptural translation, sermons, and translations of foreign articles. (“Thalaengkan”, Thammachaksu,
Vol. 27 No. 4 (January 1942)). Thammachaksu resumed publishing translated articles from foreign
journals after the end of World War II.
74
These translated articles in Phutthasasana dealt with the expansion of Buddhism in
Europe and America, the present situations in Buddhist countries around the world, and
histories of Buddhism in ancient India and in Mahäyäna Buddhist countries. These
translators and other readers of foreign articles should have received some influence
from Western Buddhists, however, it must not be ignored that instead Thai Buddhists
felt proud of their religion, which was becoming more accepted in the Western world,
rather than acquiring in a humble way any Western interpretation of Buddhism.
It should also be emphasised that both Thammachaksu and Phutthasasana
intended to introduce and translate the works of Thai authors into English in order to
contribute to the propagation of Buddhism in other countries. In 1934, the Khana
Thammathan introduced themselves in The British Buddhist, an international journal in
English12. Those translated articles in Thai journals were necessary in order for Thai
Buddhists to catch up on the contemporary international movements and to take part in
and contribute to it with their tradition of Buddhism.
The other characteristic feature of Phutthasasana was its call for argumentative
exchanges of different opinions on controversial issues, although Thammachaksu also
had award winning questions on the dhamma that were a kind of method to encourage
their readers to participate in the journals and to present their different interpretations13.
Apart from the dhamma questions, Phutthasasana liked to discuss controversial issues,
such as vegetarianism that Lokanatha Bhikkhu brought to Thailand, and interpretations
of the key Buddhist concept, anattä (non-self), which is difficult to realise in everyday
experience. There were various responses from the readers who agreed, disagreed and
were uncertain. Sometimes, the editors, Thammathat and Buddhadasa, wrote an open
letter under their pseudonyms to raise questions and provoke answers from readers.
One such example was Thammathat’s open letter, under his pseudonym,
A’ngun On14, who was worried whether he should be ordained as a monk or remain as a

12 “From Siam”, The British Buddhist, Vol. 8 No. 2 (January-March 1934), pp. 114 - 115. Details
introduced in Chapter I also support this view. See Footnotes 33 and 34 in Chapter I.
13 The same editorial style can be found in a journal, Suksa thammada, which was published from
1919 until at least 1924 by a lay Buddhist group, and from which Thammathat said that he gained an
idea for his journal, Phutthasasana (Thammathat, interview). The Suksa thammada is held in the
National Library of Thailand from vol. 2 (1920) to vol. 6 (1924).
14 Buddhadasa mentioned that A’ngun On was actually Thammathat in his interview with Phra
Pracha (Phra Pracha,Lao wai..., p. 216).
75
layman. A’ngun On wrote that he was bored with the social incidents about which he
wrote as a newspaper reporter, but he still wanted to depend on himself instead of alms,
to retain his freedom outside the 227 precepts, and was not sure whether monks might
exploit fellow countrymen13. There were two responses to A’ngun On published in
Phutthasasana. The first response from Khaisaeng pointed out that A’ngun On’s desire
to eat whatever he wanted without depending on alms was a käma tanhä (thirst after
sensual pleasure), and defended the true way of living of a monk as thrifty enough not
to disturb lay supporters’ lives. Khaisaeng insisted that the renounced life is a method to
achieve the overcoming of suffering instead of a restriction of freedom, and
recommended the Buddha’s teachings for lay people who are satisfied with the worldly
life16. The other response was from Sot Kuramarohit, a communitarian socialist then
studying in Beijing. Sot interpreted A’ngun On’s question of whether to be ordained or
not was actually intended to blame ordained monks’ way of living, which is firstly
selfish and lazy in exploiting fellow countrymen, and secondly contradicts human
nature, such as not being allowed to have a wife. Sot defended the way of monks from
his communitarian point of view which analyses that every occupation has a necessary
duty and is of equal value in society. Sot understood that the duty of monks is to
maintain and succeed in the Buddha’s teaching and 227 precepts. This duty of monks
cannot be perfected by people with other duties, such as physicians, politicians and
soldiers. For those who are willing to determine that they can accept this duty, the 227
precepts were not something that deprives them of the freedom of human beings. Also,
Sot argued that when monks do their duty of succeeding in Buddhism and teaching what
they have achieved to other people, their role is fair enough in society, not exploitative17.
These discussions in Phutthasasana indicate the journal’s reaching a qualified standard,
in which it presented a discussion of a concern to educated Buddhists based on
reasonable arguments.

13 A’ngun on (pseud. Thammathat), “Ruang samrap naksuksa num: chotmai naknangsuphim num”
(For young students: a letter from young newspaper reporter), Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 1 (May
1934), pp. 172 - 175.
16 Khaisaeng, “Chotmai top naknangsuphim num”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 2 (August 1934), pp.
296 - 299.
17 Sot Kuramarohit, “Top a’ngun on ruang kanbuat”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 4 (February
2477/1935), pp. 4 1 8 -4 3 0 .
76
 After the period of the serious shortage of paper at the end of World War II18,
the discussions in both journals, Thammachaksu and Phutthasasana, became more
active and developed a variety of concerns. The changes in Thammachaksu were
remarkable. Three new characteristics appeared in the post-war Thammachaksu: first,
the return of translated articles from English language Buddhist journals; second, the
much more frequent participation of lay intellectuals; and third, the growing concerns
with other Buddhist traditions and other religions’ ideologies. Thammachaksu also
started publishing English language articles in order to transmit their ideas to foreign
readers as well. These new trends reflected the substantial growth of the lay Buddhist
groups, such as the Buddhist Association of Thailand (phutthasamakhom haeng prathet
thai) and the Young Buddhist Association of Thailand (yuwaphutthika samakhom haeng
prathet thai). The intellectual members of these lay Buddhist associations, such as
Samak Burawat and Sathian Photinantha, introduced philosophical and historical
discussions of Buddhism into the traditional Buddhist academia dominated by
scripturally expert monks. The role of lay intellectuals, particularly those in the Young
Buddhist Association, were supported by Sujivo Bhikkhu (who later disrobed and took
the name Suchip Punyanuphap), a young Pali scholar monk in Mahamakut Buddhist
University. The post-war period by the end of the 1950s was one of the most prosperous
eras of Thammachaksu.
During this period, Phutthasasana also continued vigorous discussions, which
shared the same intellectual trends of Buddhism appearing in Thammachaksu. Although
Phutthasasana had already had two of these elements, the ideas of foreign Buddhists’
and lay people’s participation from the beginning, Phutthasasana in the post-war period
became responsive to the discussions in Thammachaksu. For example, after
Thammachaksu published a translation of Christmas Humphreys’ article, “Twelve
Principles of Buddhism” in June - October 194619, Buddhadasa published his

18
Phutthasasana issued only one volume of thirty-eight pages with bad quality paper for two years
in 1944 and 1945, and another volume of twenty-one pages for the year 1946. It got back to normal
to appear every three months after February 1947. Thammachaksu was also affected by war and
reduced publication from monthly to every four months from October 1945, and the papers of the
two volumes in 1945 and 1946 (Vol. 31 No. 1 - 4 (October 1945 - January 1946), Vol. 31 No. 5 - 8
(February - May 1946)) were very bad quality. The paper quality of Thammachaksu returned to
normal from June - September 1946, but appeared every three to two months after then.
19 “Lak 12 kho haeng phra phutthasasana khong nai khritmat hamfre, nayok ho phutthasasanik
haeng krung london” (The twelve principles of Buddhism by Mr. Christmas Humphreys, the
77
translation of the same article in Phutthasasana in February 194720. This translation was
probably Buddhadasa’s first translation of a long English essay, which indicates the
improvement in his English by then, and he became very famous for his beautiful Thai
phrases that conveyed the original message better than the other translation in
Thammachaksu- .
More important was that Thammachaksu and Phutthasasana together created
an intellectual enthusiasm in Mahäyäna Buddhist philosophy, especially Zen Buddhism,
among Thai Buddhists whose interest in Buddhism had originated in the Pali scriptures.
In the great popularity of Mahäyäna Buddhism from the late 1940s, the ethnic Chinese in
Thailand, especially Tan Mo Siang ( i n f i l l ) and Sathian Phothinantha, had significant
roles. Tan Mo Siang was a Taechew-speaking Chinese Zen Buddhist lay preacher at the
Institute for Studies of Chinese Buddhism (^ ilffilW F ^ L li). Sathian Phothinantha,
who was perfectly bilingual in Chinese and Thai, often translated Tan Mo Siang’s
preaching. Even though general ideas on the history of Mahäyäna Buddhism had been
translated from English articles and published in Phutthasasana and also a few in
Thammachaksu before the end of the war, further philosophical ideas from Mahäyäna

Buddhism would not have been so easy to be comprehended without these two
Chinese-Thai intellectuals.
Tan Mo Siang and Sathian were essential to Buddhadasa’s interest in and
translation of an English text on Mahäyäna Buddhism into Thai. In February 1947,

Phutthasasana published Buddhadasa’s public lecture at the Institute for Studies of

Chinese Buddhism, entitled “Kho khuan sap kiaw kap lak phutthasasana rawang nikai
tang tang” (Points that should be known about different schools of Buddhism)22. This

President of London Buddhist Lodge), Thammachaksu, Vol. 31 No. 9 - 1 2 (June - October 1946),
pp. 77 - 84. No translator’s name was given.
~Q Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Lak phutthasasana 12 kho khong hamfre” (The twelve principles of
Buddhism by Humphreys), Phutthasasana, Vol. 15 No. 1 (February 1947), pp. 5 - 33.
21 According to a biographer of Chitti Tinsaphat (1909 - 1995), Chitti started following the
teachings of Buddhadasa, because he reached a deep understanding of the book through
Buddhadasa’s translation of it, although he did not have much understanding and impression from
other translation of the same book by other elder monk (Khana nittisat lae mulanithi nittisat
mahawitthayalai thammasat (The Faculty of Law and the Foundation for the Faculty of Law,
Thammasat University) (ed.), “Prawat lae phonngan sastrachan chitti tinsaphat” (A history and work
of Professor Chitti Tinsaphat) (23 January 1990) (A commemoration video for the eighty year
anniversary of Prof. Chitti Tinsaphat)). Chitti served as a judge, the dean of the Faculty of Law at
Thammasat University, and a member of the Privy Council.
22 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Kho khuan sap kiao kap lak phutthasasana rawang nikai tang tang”,
78
indicates Buddhadasa’s concern for Buddhist ecumenism. In the next issue,
Phutthasasana started Buddhadasa’s famous translations on Zen Buddhism, Sutra of
Wei Lang, from English into Thai23. For this translation, Buddhadasa sought advice
from Tan Mo Siang about the original Chinese concepts of Zen Buddhism. It has to be
noted that Buddhadasa was not at odds with his contemporary Thai Buddhist academic
monks, although many scholars have indicated that a Mahäyäna element is a
characteristic of Buddhadasa’s thought, which deviated from the orthodox Theraväda

Buddhism of Thailand. Contrarily, one of the most orthodox Thai Buddhist academics
in Mahamakut Buddhist University was also excited with the new knowledge about
another school of thought in Buddhism. Sathian’s articles and translations in particular
were frequently published in Thammachaksu. Buddhadasa said that his translations of
English texts on Mahäyäna Buddhism were appreciated by everyone because they helped
to clarify a previously unknown philosophy24.
Not only other traditions of Buddhism but also other philosophies became of
interest to academic Buddhists who expressed their opinions in the Buddhist journals.
Hinduism especially attracted Thai intellectual Buddhists’ concerns in the 1930s
through the impact of Swami Satyananda Puri, a Hindu philosopher who had migrated
from India to Thailand. Even though in the old days Thai cultures were influenced by
Indian cultures, contemporary Thais were unaware of these connections. Swami
Satyananda Puri was often invited to give public lectures, his lectures were published in
oc
Thammachaksu up until the early 1940s , and Buddhadasa also visited him for private
lessons . However, the Swami’s “Greater India” point of view was not welcome to Thai
Buddhists. In one of his speeches at Chulalongkom University in 1932 entitled, “The
origin of Buddhist thought”, he regarded Buddhism as a part of Hindu philosophy27.

Phutthasasana , Vol. 15 No. 1 (February 1947), pp. 35 - 48.

23 Wong Mu Lam, “Sut khong wei lang” (Sutra o f Wei Lang), Phutthasasana, Vol. 15 No. 2 (May
1947), pp. 9 6 - 123.
24 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 501.
25 Sawami Sathayananthaburi (Swami Satyananda Puri), “Ruang winyan” (About vinnänd),
Thammachaksu, Vol. 26 No. 8 (May 1941), pp. 890 - 902; Sawami Sathayananthapri,
“Khwam-kao-na haeng sasana” (Progress in religion), Thammachaksu, Vol. 26 No. 11 (August 1941),
pp. 1184 - 1188; Sawami Sathayananthapri, “Kala haeng sasana” (Time in religion), Thammachaksu,
Vol. 27 No. 10 (July 1942), pp. 879 - 884.
26 See Chapter I, p. 63 and footnote 152.
2' The date o f the speech is uncertain. His speech was given in English, and published in: D. N. Das
(ed.), Speeches and writings of Swami Satyananda (Bangkok: Thai-Bharata Cultural Lodge, 1940),
79
Thai Buddhist intellectuals, such as Prince Wan28 and Phra Ratchathamnithet29,
critically responded to the Swami in Chulalongkom University’s journal,
Mahawitthayalai.
In the early 1940s Thai Buddhists were antagonistic to adherents of
Catholicism. Because of the nationalist sentiment during the Thai-French Indochinese
Conflict, both Phutthasasana and Thammachaksu became critical of Roman
Catholicism represented by French missionaries. Buddhadasa seems to have been
affected by this atmosphere, and he wrote a critical article on Roman Catholicism in
Phutthasasana, “Top panha batluang” (Answering questions of a Catholic father) in
November 1939 - February 194030. An article with a similar reaction is found in
Thammachaksu in February 1940j1.
In the Buddhist public sphere in Thailand after World War II, Thai Buddhists
appear to have been keenly interested in other systems of religious thought compared
and contrasted with Buddhism. In Mahamakut Buddhist University, Sujivo Bhikkhu
started teaching “Comparative religions” around 1946 as a new subject for student
monks. He published his lecture notes as a textbook in 196132. Also, it seemed to be in
the post-war period when Buddhadasa, after his initial prejudice against Christianity,
started to be interested in inter-religious dialogue. Phutthasasana in August 1948
reprinted an article from the Catholic journal, Udomphan, which was edited by a
promoter of inter-religious dialogue, Father John Ulliana33. By the early 1960s,
Buddhadasa had developed his intellectual associations with other religions, such as the
Catholic John Ulliana just mentioned, and the Muslim Haj Prayun Wathanayakun.

EP-1-38.
" M. C. Vamvaidya Varavarn (Wan Waithayakon), “My impressions of Swami Satyananda Puri’s
Lecture on the ‘Origin of Buddhistic thoughts’”, Mahawitthayalai (University), Vol. 10 No. 5 (1932),
£p. 630 - 633.
“9 Phra Ratchathamnithet, “Khwam-nuk chua khana” (A thought in a moment), Mahawitthayalai,
Vol. 10 No. 6 (1932), pp.813 - 819.
30 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Top panha batluang”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 7 No. 3 - 4 (November 1939 -
February 1940), pp. 280 - 335.
31 Mom Chao Chatchawarit Kasemsan, “Kham top panha khong batluang khong mom chao
chatchawarit”, Thammachaksu, Vol. 24 No. 10 (February 2482/1939), pp. 959 - 973.
32 Suchip Punyanuphap, “Khamnam nai kanphim khrang thi raek” (Introduction for the first
printing), Sasana priap thiap (Comparative religions) (Bangkok: Mahamakut Ratchawitthayalai,
1961, 1997), p. kho.
33 “Sut thai lua khon diaw” (At the end, being left alone), Phutthasasana, Vol. 16 No. 3 (August
1948).
80
Phutthasasana published an article by Prayun in 1953j4 and one by Buddhadasa in
1963 on whether the dhamma is “God”33.
In comparison with the Buddhist academics in the Mahamakut Buddhist
University, who were the main contributors to the journal Thammachaksu up until the
early 1950s, Buddhadasa can be seen to have shared contemporary concerns in the
Buddhist public sphere at that time, rather than deviating from the academics who were
closest to the Sangha administration. However, Buddhadasa and the academics in
Thammachaksu gradually became differentiated around the late 1950s or the early
1960s. During this period and after, Buddhadasa further developed his understanding of
the world and religion on the basis of Theraväda Buddhism through dialogues with other
traditions of Buddhism and with other religions. On the other hand, during the 1960s
and 1970s in the midst of the Cold War period, Thammachaksu took up political
incidents and Buddhism, such as Buddhism in Vietnam by Kukrit Pramoj36. Those
articles indicate that Thammachaksu became closer to such politicians as Kukrit, who
was politically supportive to the status quo.
From the early 1950s, Phutthasasana became a less significant journal for
discussions in the Buddhist public sphere, the same as Thammachaksu around the late
1950s. Instead, Phuttha-tham, the journal of the Buddhist Association, and Phutthachak
(A realm of Buddhism), a journal of Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University, became
more substantial from the 1950s and the late 1960s respectively. During the Cold War
period in the 1960s and 1970s, Phutthachak incorporated social issues into Buddhism,
especially after 1969, and around the same time, the group of socially engaged
Buddhists, including Sulak Sivaraksa, started contributing to the journal 37 .

34 Prayun Wathayanakun, “Wan idilawat ha”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 21 No. 3 - 4 (August -

November 1953), pp. 127 - 132.
Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Thamma khu phra chao?” (Is the dhamma “God”?), Phutthasasana, Vol.
31 No. 3 - 4 (August - November 1963).
36 For examples, Khukrit Pramot (Kukrit Pramoj), “Chalachon nai wiatnam tai” (Uprisings in South
Vietnam), Thammachaksu, Vol. 48 No. 11 (August 1963); Khukrit Pramot, “Hetkan nai wiatnam tai”
(Incidents in South Vietnam), Thammachaksu, Vol. 48 No. 12 (September 1963); Khukrit Pramot,
“Khwam-wunwai thi wiatnam tai” (Confusions in South Vietnam), Thammachaksu, Vol. 49 No. 1
(October 1963); Khukrit Pramot, “Phuttha borisat nai wiatnam tai” (Buddhists in South Vietnam),
Thammachaksu, Vol. 49 No. 2 (November 1963); Khukrit Pramot, “Ratthaban wiatnam tai kap
phuttha borisat” (South Vietnamese government and Buddhists), Thammachaksu, Vol. 49 No. 2
(December 1963).
J? Before the 14 October uprising in 1973, Sulak’s articles in Phutthachak included in the special
issue, “Khrongkan oprom phra phikkhusu phua songsoem kan-phatthana thong thin” (The project of
81
P hutthasasana became smaller in terms of pages and had fewer articles from around the

1960s , but Buddhadasa’s lectures and interviews were very often published in

P huttha-tham and P hutthachak to represent a Buddhist point of view in the social

turmoil.

When the journal P hutthasasana became less significant, Buddhadasa had

already become important in the Buddhist public sphere. Buddhadasa said that the

editors became tired of working on the journal, and it gradually took on the role of just a

newsletter of the Khana Thammathanj9. Instead, Buddhadasa was invited to talk in the

Buddhist Association of Thailand in Bangkok from 1940, and famous newspaper

reporters summarised Buddhadasa’s lectures at the Buddhist Association in their papers.

Also, the Suwichan Bookshop opened in Bangkok in 1953 specifically to publish and

retail Buddhadasa’s books. In other words, by the early 1950s, these other places

provided more opportunities than his journal for Buddhadasa to propagate his

understanding of the dham m a in the Buddhist public sphere in Thailand.

2. Propagation to elite intellectuals: The Buddhist Association of Thailand

The Buddhist Association of Thailand, or P hutthasam akhom haeng p ra th et

thai nai p h ra borom rachupatham , gave Buddhadasa significant opportunities to become

known among intellectuals in Bangkok, even though the association was not an

training monks for promoting rural development), Phutthachak, Vol. 23 No. 7 (July 1969); Sulak
Siwarak, “Wat kap kan-anurak sinlapakam lae saphap waetlom” (Temples and fine arts and
environment conservation), Phutthachak, Vol. 26 No. 12 (December 1972); So. Siwarak, “Champen
tong mi sasana ru mai” (Is it necessary for us to have religion or not?), Phutthachak, Vol. 27 No. 2
(February 1973), pp. 22 - 26; So. Siwarak, “Damrong chiwit yu phua arai” (For what do we live?),
Phutthachak, Vol. 27 No. 3 (March 1973), pp. 12 - 16. The articles of Sulak and his group of
engaged Buddhists often appeared again near to the 6 October coup in 1976. Their articles included:
Tit Nat Han (Thich Nhat Hanh), “Baep fuk hat samrap charoen sati”, Phutthachak, Vol. 30 No. 4-5
(April-May 1976), pp. 5 - 11; Nikolat Bennet (Nicolas Bennett?), “Santi withi kap kan-sawaeng ha
thang thi sam” (The peaceful method and pursuit of the third way), Phutthachak, Vol. 30 No. 6-7
(June-July 1976); Prawet Wasi (Prawase Wasi), “Thammai son tham mai dai phon” (Why do we not
receive a result?), Phutthachak, Vol. 30 No. 7 (July 1976); Sulak Siwarak, “An nuang ma chak kham
samphat than kittiwuttho phikkhu” (In relation to the interview of Ven. Kittivuddho Bhikkhu),
Phutthachak, Vol. 30 No. 7 (July 1976), pp. 23 - 25. From around August 1976 when the 6 October
coup was approaching, and the violence of counter-insurgency escalated, articles that were related to
politics and society disappeared from Phutthachak, and by 1977 the journal only published articles
on Pali study and English literature.
38 Buddhadasa said that he and Thammathat gradually got tired of working on the journal, and it
recently became a newsletter of the Thammathan Mulanithi (Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 217).
39 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 217.
82
organisation aimed solely at propagating Buddhadasa’s preaching. In fact, the most
central figure of the association, Sanya Dhammasakdi, who has been elected to the
President many times, related the personal significance of Buddhadasa for the
association as being, “The inspiration by which I accepted the load of working for the
Buddhist Association until today was the inspiration that I received from Buddhadasa
Bhikkhu, though it was indirect”40. Moreover, this most long-lived and substantial lay
Buddhist association in Thailand had the same feature of Buddhadasa’s teaching that
indicated a way for lay people to overcome suffering, the highest goal of Buddhism.
The Buddhist Association of Thailand promotes the idea of giving more active roles to
the laity in Buddhism, which has traditionally been represented by the Sangha, the
association of the ordained monks. In this section, I will explore two aspects of the
Buddhist Association of Thailand, first, as a development of lay Buddhist involvement,
and second, as an important place for Buddhadasa’s preaching to Bangkok intellectuals.

The establishment of the Buddhist Association of Thailand

The Buddhist Association of Thailand41 was established on Magha Puja Day,

28 February 1934, by a group of bureaucrats under the rule of the People’s Party who
were interested in Buddhism. The establishment of the Buddhist Association was
discussed among five persons, namely Luang Siriratmaitri (former secretary of the
Embassy of Thailand in London and a member of the People’s Party), Luang
Woraphakphinit (secretary-general of the Board of Audit), Phra Ratchathamnithet
(Phian Ratchathamnithet; 1891 - 1965) (the director of the Department of Religious
Affairs), Luang Ronasitthiphichai (the director of the Department of Publicity and a

40 Suksanti Chirachariyawet (ed.), 7 rop achan sanya (Seventh twelve-year cycle [i.e., eighty-four
years] of Achan Sanya) (Bangkok: Mulanithi nitthisat, Mahawitthayalai thammasat, 1991), p. 149.
41 The following history of the Buddhist Association of Thailand is based on: Sanya Thammasak
(Sanya Dhammasakdi), “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma nai 35 pi khong
Phutthasamakhom haeng prathet thai nai phra boromarachupatham” (The history of establishment,
works, and transition in the thirty-five years of the Buddhist Association of Thailand under Royal
Patronage), Kham thalaeng kitchakan nai rop p i phutthasakkarat 2533 khong phutthasamakhom
haeng prathet thai nai phra boromarachupatham (The announcement of the activities in the year
1990 of the Buddhist Association of Thailand under Royal Patronage) (Bangkok: Samnakngan
khong Phutthasamakhom haeng Prathet Thai, 1992), pp. 5 - 30; Sanya Thammasak, Nathi khong
phutthasamakhom (The duty of the Buddhist Association) (Bangkok: Phutthasamakhom haeng
prathet thai, 1961).
83
member of the People’s Party), and Sanya Dhammasakdi (then an assistant judge at the
Civil Court)42. Among the thirty-three original committee members for the establish­
ment of the Buddhist Association, Sanya regarded Phra Ratchathamnithet as the most
important supporter. He provided a place to meet and was officially in the position of
director of the Department of Religious Affairs43.
While they were either doing their work or studying in London, Luang
Siriratmaitri, Luang Woraphakphinit, and Sanya Dhammasakdi were impressed by the
work of the British Maha Bodhi Society. They felt that they would like to make a lay
Buddhist association that contributed to the propagation of Buddhism, especially in
order to support the Italian monk, Phra Lokanatha, who brought the idea of sending a
Buddhist mission of a hundred monks and novices from Thailand to the world around
February 1934. Sanya explained that the atmosphere of that time was an excitement in
attempting something new after the Constitutional Revolution in 1932, and a curiosity
about a foreign white monk, Phra Lokanatha44.
For the establishment of a lay Buddhist association, there was some sort of
scepticism among the Sangha. Originally the name of the association was
“Phuttha-tham samakhom”, or the Buddha-Dharnma Association. As far as Sanya
remembered, this name was because the association should be an adherent to the
dhamma of the Buddha, and propagate the dhamma of the Buddha to the people.
However, the association was criticised for ignoring the Sangha because the Sangha was
the only one of the triple gems of Buddhism excluded from the name. A few years later,
they changed the name to “Phuttha-samakhom”, or literally the Buddha’s Association,
and when the association’s activities were under way, such misunderstandings
disappeared45.
In fact, the Buddhist Association of Thailand did not cause any problems for
the Sangha, unlike the preceding lay Buddhist association of Narin Phasit, who often
challenged the authority of the Sangha in some understandings of texts and by his

42 Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop: phra ratchathamnithet (phian ratchathamnithet)
(Commemoration for the cremation: Phra Ratchathamnithet (Phian Ratchathamnithet)) (11 April
1966). The political affiliation of some of these people to the People’s Party was indicated by Prof.
Eiji Murashima. 1 am grateful for his advice.
4j Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, pp. 7 - 8 .
44 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 6.
45 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 7.
84
profoundly innovative attempts to restore the female monastic order. Also, the
recognition of the Buddhist Association can be understood in the situation after the
Constitutional Revolution in 1932. By this Revolution, some important Thammayut
members of the Elders’ Council, who came from a royalist background, felt threatened ,
and the prestige of the Sangha became perhaps shaken or less certain than the rule of the
absolute monarchies which had been supporting the Sangha. On the other hand, some of
the important members of the Buddhist Association had connections with the People’s
Party, which overthrew the system of absolute monarchy. In other words, the lay
Buddhists in the Buddhist Association belonged to the new politically powerful elite
circle, which became more confident in itself in contrast to the somewhat shaken
authority of the Sangha.
However, the actual activities of the Buddhist Association were nothing
challenging, but in fact co-operated with the Sangha. Sanya wrote,

... this association never thought to compete with the bhikkhu’s Sangha, which has
had the duty to propagate the dhamma of the Buddha. Instead, this Association
works as a disciple of the monks, serves monks, and invites those [lay people] who
do not respect monks to respect monks47.

Its activities had two dimensions: one, the enforcement of the traditional lay
role of däna to the monks; the other was a new role, that is propagation. As for its first
activity, the Buddhist Association organised an alms-giving ceremony of the people on
Visakha Puja Day in 1934. On this occasion, the Association invited 1,250 monks and
novices, headed by the Supreme Patriarch, to the schoolyard of the Suan Kulap High
School. Since the following year, 1935, the Buddhist Association has been assigned the
alms-giving ceremony on New Year’s Day at the Sanam Luang (Phrameru Ground) .
Apart from ceremonial alms-giving, the Buddhist Association also supported the
welfare of monks and novices by providing textbooks on vinaya, meeting medical
expenses, and practical arrangements when they had to escape from bomb damage
during World War II49. These activities were a systematisation of the traditional lay role
towards monks, but were not as innovative as the other role, the propagation of the

46 Kamala Tiyavanich, Forest recollections: wandering monks in twentieth-century Thailand

(Chiangmai: Silkworm Books, 1997), p. 187.
47 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 16.
48 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 10.
49 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, pp. 18 - 20.
85
dham m a through newly developed communication technologies.
For the propagation of the d h a m m a , the Buddhist Association held various
kinds of activities: publishing journals, free distribution books, holding schoolchildren’s
essay competitions50, regular public lectures, radio broadcasting of dham m a talks51, and
arranging religious instruction in schools ~. From the beginning publication of Buddhist
journals has been one of the most important propagation activities of the Association.
The Buddhist Association published the monthly journal, P huttha-tham (the Buddha’s
d h a m m a ), from May 1934 until it was faced with a financial deficit in May 1935. They
replaced P huttha-tham with the tri-monthly journal, R a m ru k (Memory), from 1935 to
1939. When R a m ru k experienced financial difficulties, they published instead N angsu
thalaengkan k h o n g phutthasam akhom (The newsletter of the Buddhist Association)
until 1942. After the period of commodity shortage during the war, they restarted
publication in October 1951 with the monthly journal, P h u tth a -th a m , which continues
until today5-3.
The regular public lecture was the other propagation activity that the Buddhist
Association conducted from 1934 onwards, soon after its establishment. The regular
public lecture was not very popular in the beginning, so the preachers were not very
happy to give lectures to such small audiences of around ten54. Sanya analysed a reason
of its unpopularity as,

... there were not many speakers who could accept to expound the dhamma for
‘phu-ru\ or knowledgeable people. This was very unusual at that time55.

In other words, the preachers were not as educated as the main committee members of

50 This also began in 1934, and was probably the first activity for youth in Thailand, according to
Sanya (Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, pp. 12 - 13).
51 The Buddhist Association was given an opportunity to propagate the dhamma on the radio from
the Department of Publicity by an offer for it to send once a month an article on Buddhism “for the
propagation and promotion of good morality of people” (Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang,
phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 17). In 1965, the Buddhist Association broadcast dhamma
lectures and dhamma conversations sixty-seven times, a total of forty hours; in 1966, fifty-three
times for twenty-seven hours; and in 1967, forty-two times for thirty hours (Sanya Thammasak,
“Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 17).
52 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 18.
33 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 12. Aside from
the journals, the Buddhist Association published and distributed books on the dhamma: 36,489
copies in 1965, 43,000 copies in 1966, and 36,610 copies in 1967 (Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat
kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 12).
54 Sanya Thammasak, Nathi khong Phutthasamakhom, p. 10.
3:5 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma ...”, p. 15.
86
the Buddhist Association, who were the country’s elite bureaucrats, some of whom had
even been educated in Europe. However, later the Association’s lecture became a very
prestigious sathaban, or an academic institution. The lecturers felt proud to address the
Buddhist Association36. It was only after World War II that the lecture series gained
popularity, when the Buddhist Association held the lectures at the library of Mahamakut
Buddhist University. During that time, listeners overflowed from the library and the
members of the Association grew5' . Buddhadasa was actually one of the popular
lecturers in the period of expansion of the Buddhist Association’s lecture series.

The Buddhist Association as a place for Buddhadasa’s propagation of the dhamma

Buddhadasa was first invited to preach at the Buddhist Association in 194058

by Sanya Dhammasakdi. He had known Buddhadasa since the early 1930s through their
mutual writings on Buddhism59. The lecture at the Buddhist Association was
Buddhadasa’s physical debut in the society of Buddhist intellectuals and the elite in
Bangkok. Buddhadasa had already become known among Buddhist intellectuals by
publishing the journal Phutthasasana for seven years. The Buddhist Association
advertised Buddhadasa’s first lecture in daily newspapers. Buddhadasa recalled that two
to three hundred people listened to his first lecture60, which seems to have been a
special feature programme of the Buddhist Association at that time.
Buddhadasa’s first dhamma lecture at the Buddhist Association, “Witthi haeng
kan khao thung phuttha-tham” (The way to reach the Buddha dhamma), was a

56 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma . . . ”, p. 15.

37 Sanya Thammasak, “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma . .. ”, p. 28.
38 The Buddhist Association still called itself in Thai “Phuttha-tham samakhom” then, instead of
“Phuttha-samakhom haeng prathet thai” as it is at present.
39 Buddhadasa first found Sanya’s article on the activities of the British Maha Bodhi Society in the
weekly newspaper, Thai khasem ruam khao (Thai Khasem news collection edition), to which Sanya
contributed from London while he was studying there. Buddhadasa wrote a letter to Sanya in
London to inform him of his similar activities with the Khana Thammathan in Chaiya, Thailand, and
Sanya also replied to Buddhadasa. They first met each other in 1933 at Wat Bowonniwet in Bangkok
at Phra Lokanatha’s preaching to recruit monks and novices for the Buddhist world mission, where
Sanya, a newly returnee from London, was an interpreter. At this preaching, Buddhadasa put many
interesting questions to Phra Lokanatha. After the questions and answers, Buddhadasa and Sanya
introduced themselves to each other, realising that they had already exchanged letters. In 1938,
Sanya visited Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh together with senior judges: Phraya Latplithammaprakhan,
and Phraya Parotratchasuphit. (7 rop achan sanya, pp. 139 - 142.)
60 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 321.
87
tremendous hit among Bangkok intellectuals. Buddhadasa, a self-taught young
intellectual monk from the provinces, exhibited his extensive knowledge of the theory
of Buddhist practice written in the scriptures, which very few in Thailand had inquired
into and he explained it to the lay Buddhist public.
In this lecture, Buddhadasa aimed to share ph u tth a -th a m (Pali:
b u d d h a -d h a m m a), or the Buddha’s dham m a, with lay Buddhist intellectuals, by
co-operating with the propagation activities of the Buddhist Association of lay
Buddhists. He opened his lecture by saying:

Although I am not a member of the Buddhist Association, because this association

does not have any ordained members, I am a member of this association in sprit.
This is because this association has the same purpose that I have - that is, to
propagate the Buddha’s dhamma61.

Buddhadasa articulated the word, p h u tth a -th a m , in three ways. According to

Buddhadasa, p h u tth a -th a m means first, “the teaching of the Buddha” or the
pariyatti-dhamma (scriptural study); second, “the dh am m a that makes us become a
buddha” or the patipatti-dhamma (practising the dh am m a); and third, “the normality of the
Buddha, ... or “‘the thing’ that the Buddha found out”, or the pativedha-dhamma

(realisation of the d h a m m a ) . Among these three, Buddhadasa examined in his lecture

the third meaning of p h u tth a -th a m , the pativedha-dhamma. Buddhadasa reasoned that only
a few people could reach the Buddha’s d h a m m a , particularly the ordained monks, if we
define p h u tth a -th a m in the first and second meanings. Instead, in the third meaning,
Buddhadasa said:

You do not have to go either through the Tipitaka or through ascetic meditation
practice in order to reach the Buddha dhamma. ... The Buddha dhamma, or the
thing that the Buddha found out, was a public thing that is available to everyone, it
exists everywhere, and is ready to touch every person in every moment63.

In other words, Buddhadasa was teaching the essence of Buddhism to lay Buddhists in
the secular world, those who used to be considered as too far away to reach the Buddha
d h am m a. This was in fact what the lay intellectuals in the Buddhist Association were
interested in.

61 Phikkhu Phutthathat Inthapanyo (Buddhadasa Inthapanyo Bhikkhu), “Witthi haeng kan khao
thung phuttha-tham, Patthakatha Phiset”, Chumnum patthakatha phuttha-tham (Collection of
lectures on the Buddha dhamma) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Sukkhaphap Chai, 1992), pp. 1 - 2 .
62 Phikkhu Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Witthi haeng kan khao thung phuttha-tham”, pp. 2 - 3 .
6j Phikkhu Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Witthi haeng kan khao thung phuttha-tham”, p. 5.
88
 The lecture further expanded on the actual ways to reach the Budddha’s
dhamma, based on Buddhadasa’s extensive scriptural studies. Buddhadasa explained
that in order to reach the Buddha’s dhamma, we have to get rid of our attachments to
worldly matters which are impermanent, suffering, and have no self. People consider
these things as permanent, pleasurable, and self-entities because of avijjä (ignorance),
and therefore are attached to them. Buddhadasa indicated three steps to overcome these
wrong conceptions. By pannä (wisdom) we have to examine: first, visible objects,
sounds, smells, tastes, and bodily sensations that our instinct tends to become attached
to; second, attachment to any ideologies, which disturb the freedom of the mind that can
distinguish nibbäna and the Buddha’s dhamma; and third, attachment to self64. These are
the ways Buddhadasa examined on how to overcome the attachments that prevent us
from attaining the Buddha’s dhamma. Buddhadasa indicated training of mind through
meditation which is thoroughly described in the scriptures65. In this path, Buddhadasa
thought that ordained monks could make a good achievement faster than those
practising in lay worldly life. Buddhadasa considered ordained monks as “more
advanced models that lay people can follow to practise for accomplishing the perfect
state of mind”66.
This first lecture of Buddhadasa at the Buddhist Association had a great impact
on lay Buddhist intellectuals in Bangkok. The Buddhist Association took down
Buddhadasa’s lecture in shorthand, and it was first published in his journal,
Phutthasasana in November 1940 with some of Buddhadasa’s own editorial corrections.
Then, the lecture was published as a cremation volume first by Phraya
Pharotratchasuphit, an important member of the Buddhist Association who was elected
to the vice-presidency many times, and was one of the three judges who visited
Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh for the first time in 1938. This cremation volume reached
the hands of Chao Phraya Thammasakmontri (1877 - 1944), who is also known by his
pseudonym, Khru Thep, as a poet and as “a teacher of schoolteachers”. He wrote many
school textbooks and worked for the Ministry of Education and Religion until the early

64
Phikkhu Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Witthi haeng kan khao thung phuttha-tham”, pp. 10 - 30.
65
Phikkhu Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Witthi haeng kan khao thung phuttha-tham”, pp. 41 - 58.
66
Phikkhu Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Witthi haeng kan khao thung phuttha-tham”, p. 40.
89
 67
1930s . Chao Phraya Thammasakmontri commented on Buddhadasa’s lecture in the
cremation volume, “This book will never die”68. The lecture was reprinted in many
cremation volumes, and made known to people the depth of Buddhist teaching. This
lecture caused Buddhadasa to become acknowledged as a scholarly monk among elite
intellectuals.
After his first lecture, all Buddhadasa’s lectures at the Buddhist Association
were taken down in shorthand in order to be published. They attracted many
intellectuals. One of his lectures at the Buddhist Association, “Phuttha-tham kap
chettanarom khong prachatipatai” (The Buddha’s dhamma and the spirit of democracy)
in January 1947 had the honour to have in the audience Pridi Phanomyong (1900 -
1983), who was the regent of King Rama VIII69. Also, Kulap Saipradit (1905 - 1974), a
leading intellectual journalist, attended every lecture of Buddhadasa at the Buddhist
Association. He wrote a short summary of each lecture for his newspaper70. Another
journalist, Wiiat Maniwat (1924 - ) , who was bom in the same town Buddhadasa was
from, contributed articles on Buddhadasa to Supha Sirimanon’s weekly journal, Nikon
wan athit. He indicated that Buddhism as presented by Buddhadasa could endure
critical examination by modem European philosophers . Wiiat regarded another
famous lecture by Buddhadasa to the Buddhist Association, “Phukhao haeng witthi
phuttha-tham” (Mountainous hindrance on the way to the Buddha dhamma), as the book
that he would bring with him if he were banished to an island . Buddhadasa’s

67 About Chao Phraya Thammasakmontri, see Chonthila Sattayawatthana (ed.), Khru thep
(Bangkok: Thai Watthana Phanit, 1992).
8 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 321.
69 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 322. See details in Chapter V, p. 232.
70 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 321 - 322. Some of Kulap’s summary of Buddhadasa’s lecture are
collected in Ha sip p i suan mok: mua khao phut thung rao (Fifty years of Suan Mokkh Volume I:
when they talked about us) (Bangkok: Suan Usom Mulanithi, 1982). For example, Isarachon (a
pseudonym of Kulap Saipradit), “Thi ni lae thi nan” (Here and there), originally published in
Prachamit (10 March 1946), collected in Ha sip p i suan mok, pp. 1201 - 1204; Isarachon,
“Phuttha-tham lae santiphap” (The Buddha’s dhamma and peace), originally published in Suphap
burnt (6 June 1946), collected in Ha sip pi suan mok, pp. 1205 - 1209.
71 Wilat’s biographical information here is based on: Wiiat Maniwat, interview, Bangkok, 1
Febmary 1999; Chuai Phulaphoem, “Chom na phu-praphan: Wiiat Maniwat” (The face of the writer:
Wiiat Maniwat), Wiiat Maniwat, Thamma samrap khon nok wat (The dhamma for the people outside
temples) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Dok Ya, 1995).
72 Manop (a pseudonym of Wiiat Maniwat), “Thamma parithat Phutthathat Phikkhu” (The dhamma
critique of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), originally published in Nikon wan atthit (9 April 1944), Ha sip pi
suan mok, pp.1166 - 1200.
73 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 324.
90
reputation was well established by his lectures at the Buddhist Association in addition to
his journal, Phutthasasana.
However, Buddhadasa’s stimulating lectures did not go ahead without conflict.
A former judge and an important supporter of Wat Mahathat, Phra Thipparinya (Thup
Klamphasut) (1890 - 1977), sued Buddhadasa as a communist in both religious and
political circles after he listened to the lecture, “Phukhao haeng witthi phuttha-tham” in
June 194974. Phra Thipparinya criticised Buddhadasa for regarding the Buddha as a
hindrance to reach the Buddha’s dhamma, and promoted an extensive campaign to
censure Buddhadasa’s offence against the Buddha, although this attempt was not
successful. Buddhadasa was in trouble again in January 1965 for his lecture at the
Buddhist Association by saying that the Abhidhamma is not written in the form of the
Buddha’s own speech. The Abhidhamma group in the Buddhist Association brought up
his comment as a problem and attacked Buddhadasa by claiming that Buddhadasa had
defamed the Abhidhamma as not being the Buddha’s words75. Because of this conflict
with the Abhidhamma group, Buddhadasa refrained from giving lectures at the
Buddhist Association , and the Abhidhamma group was already withdrawing from the
Buddhist Association from 1962 after conflict with the older members .
Buddhadasa’s general reputation as a controversial thinker was developing in
the 1960s, but the role that the Buddhist Association played for the propagation of
Buddhadasa’s preaching was significant. Buddhadasa’s lectures at the Buddhist
Association were further spread by intellectual journalists who wrote columns in their
newspapers. Buddhadasa’s popularity suggested strongly that he was responding to lay
Buddhists’ growing concerns with the dhamma. The Buddhist Association stands for
the spread of the active participation of the laity in the Buddhist public sphere.

3. Wat Umong in Chiang Mai: propagation into the areas of other local traditions

The propagation of Buddhadasa’s preaching of the dhamma, which originated

in Southern Thailand, had an impact on and was transmitted by his lay disciples not

74 See details in Chapter V, pp. 247 - 250.

75 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 324. See details in Chapter IV, pp. 204 - 207.
70 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 324.

91
only to the nation’s capital, but also to other regions of Thailand. Buddhadasa also had a
devoted supporter in Chiang Mai Province in northern Thailand, where a distinctive
local tradition of Buddhism had been practised.
In the Chiang Mai region, prior to the 1902 Sangha Act that regulated all the
temples and monks within the territory of Siam, a distinctive rank of monk’s honorific
titles was applied'8, and monks behaved differently although in theory they should have
a common set of precepts79. Their distinctive tradition once caused trouble with the
centralised Sangha authorities. A highly respected local monk, Khruba Siwichai (1877 -
193 980), was accused for ordaining monks and novices as he had been doing despite the
fact that under the new Sangha Act, he was not qualified to do so by the Sangha
authority in Bangkok. This incident was settled by 192181, the central Sangha Elders
recognised that both ecclesiastical and secular local officers suspected Siwichai’s
popularity as a kind of phi bun (a revolt led by a charismatic monk, which took place at
oo
the turn of the twentieth century
Toward the end of the World War II, the regional differences in monastic
practice were integrated into the central Thai Sangha’s standard, especially by two
groups of monks belonging to the Thammayut Order. On the one hand, pariyatti
Thammayut monks with bureaucratic appointments promoted Thammayut ordinations
and ecclesiastical education and examination as a means of standardisation and
unification of provincial monks. The Thammayut Order of scriptural studies

7 See details in Chapter IV.

78 For example, the titles of Phra Khru and Sangkharat were voted on and conferred by lay people
and monks (Kamala Tiyavanich, Forest recollections, p. 41).
79 For example, some monks ate supper in the late afternoon, although any meal after noon is
prohibited in the vinaya (Kamala Tiyavanich, Forest recollections, p. 166). Some parents of small
novices in the countryside still prepare their evening meal at home, because they are too small to
refrain from eating (Phenchai Sirorot, interview, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999).
80 Although Kamala gave the life period of Khruba Siwichai as 1878 - 1937 (p. 43), both the notice
board in his temple and his commemoration book related that Siwichai was bom on 11 June 2420
B.E. (1877), and died on 21 February 2481 (1939). Prawat khong phra khruba chao siwichai:
nakbun haeng lanna thai (A biography of Khruba Siwichai: a meritorious person in Lanna Thai) (a
commemoration book for the opening of Phra Khruba Chao Siwichai Museum, 1994), pp. 5,179.
81 The year and the course of events need to be ascertained, since the data are contradicted in
Kamala’s Forest recollection, pp. 43 - 45, and Prawat khong phra khruba chao siwichai, pp. 73 - 75.
The year 1921 is based on the latter source.
82 Prawat khong phra khruba chao siwichai, pp. 73 - 75. About phi bun peasant rebellions, see
Shigeharu Tanabe, “Ideological Practice in peasant rebellions: Siam at the turn of the twentieth
century”, Andrew Turton and Shigeharu Tanabe (eds.), History and peasant consciousness in South
East Asia (Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 1984), pp. 75 - 110.
92
consolidated its influence through taking over a historical temple of the Lanna Kingdom,
Wat Chedi Luang, as the first Thammayut temple and its centre in the north. One of the
most important bureaucrat monks who expanded the order in the province, Chao Khun
Ubalikhunupamachan (Chan Sirichantho) (1857 - 1932)83, took a significant role as the
first abbot of Wat Chedi Luang after the temple started to affiliate with the Thammayut
Order in 1928 - 1931 . The systematised scriptural education there attracted local
monks and novices in the north, and integrated them into the system of the central
Sangha.
On the other hand, the Thammayut Order expanded in the north through its
forest meditation monks, who originated in Northeastern Thailand and followed the
charisma of Phra Achan Man Phurithatto (1871 - 1949)85. After Man’s year-long
appointment as the abbot of the Wat Chedi Luang in 1932 and his dhutanga in the north,
his disciple Thammayut forest monks followed him: Luang Pu Wean Suchinno (1887 -
1985)86, Phra Achan Tu Achalathammo (1888 - 1974)87, and Luang Pu Sim
oo
Phutthacharo (1909 - 1992) . The ascetic practice and the personality of these monks
were highly respected and supported by the people in the north, although they were
from different origins. Because of the spontaneous faith of people towards those forest
monks, the ordination of local Thammayut monks and their followers strengthened the

8j About Chao Khun Ubali, see Phra Ubalikhunupamachan (Sirichantho Chan), Attanoprawat,
thamma banyai lae khirimannatha sut (Autobiography, Dhamma lecture, and Girimanda Sutta)
(Bangkok: Chomrom Phutthasat Ko. Fo. Pho., 1988). Also, Kamala’s study examined Ubali’s and
other Sangha officials’ relations with forest monks, especially in “Chapter 7 Relation with Sangha
officials”, Forest recollections, pp. 172 - 197.
84 Phra Thammadilok (Chan Kusalo) (ed.), Nam chom wat chedi luang: chabap somphot 600 pi
phra that chedi luang (A guide to Wat Chedi Luang: the 600th anniversary of the Grand Pagoda), pp.
43 - 44.
8:3 cf. Tambiah, The Buddhist saints of the forest and the cult of amulets (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984; J. L. Taylor, Forest monks and the nation-state: an anthropological and
historical study in Northeastern Thailand (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993;
Kamala, Forest recollections.
86 About the biography of Luang Pu Wean, see. Luang pu wean suchinno (Chiang Mai: Wat Doi Mae
Teang, Amphoe Phrao).
8/ About the biography of Phra Achan Tu, see “Chiwaprawat than phra achan tu atchalathammo”
(Life history of Than Phra Achan Tu Atchalathammo), Atchalathammaphibucha nai thi raluk nuang
nai ngan tham bun khlai wan koet khrop 66 pi lae chalong samanasak phat yot phra khru
phawanaphirat (sang sangkitcho) (Worshipping Atchalathammo in commemoration of the merit
making ceremony for the approaching 66th birthday and the promotion of ecclesiastical title and
honorary fan of Phra Khru Phawanaphirat (Sang Sangkitcho) [current abbot of Wat Pa Achan Tu])
(Chiang Mai: Wat Pa Achan Tu, Amphoe Mae Taeng, 1996), pp. 1 - 86.
8 About the biography of Luang Pu Sim, see his cremation volume, Phutthacharanuson nai ngan
phra ratchathan phloeng sop phra yanasitthachan (Luang pu sim phutthacharo) (Chiang Mai:
Samnak song Tham pha Plong, Amphoe Chiang Dao, 1993).
93
ties with the Central Thai authorities of the Siamese Sangha, although this may not have
been their fundamental intention, in the first half of the twentieth century.
In terms of both political and religious administration, the north had already
been integrated into the nation-state of Siam/Thailand before Buddhadasa’s preaching
arrived there towards the end of World War II. Contrary to the Thammayut monks who
were attached to administration tasks in their preaching and education in provinces,
Buddhadasa and his group came to the north from a different region in a private status,
and Buddhadasa’s teaching spread through newly developed mass communication
techniques. By that time, Buddhadasa’s group from Chaiya, in the South, and the people
in Chiang Mai, in the North, belonged to the same public sphere for the exchange of
intellectual expressions and opinions using a common language and script. The
geographical expansion of the propagation activities of Buddhadasa’s group was a part
of the inclusion of the north as a Thai Buddhist public sphere.

The beginning of Buddhadasa’s propagation in the north: Chao Chun Sirorot

For this geographical extension, Buddhadasa had significant support from
OQ

Chao Chun Sirorot (1896 - 1995) for his propagation of the dhamma. Chun was bom
as a son of Chao Inthapat, who descended from a Lord of Chiang Tung, Chao Kiamom,
and his wife, Duang, who was from a family of Karen, a hill tribe. When Chun’s father,
Chao Inthapat, married Chao Mae Buaphan, who was also descended from a lord of
Chiang Tung, his mother, Duang, left her first husband and returned to her parents’
home with her children. Later, Duang married Kaew Rattanaphon, who was a janitor of
a provincial government school, and who brought up Duang’s sons, i.e. Chun and his
brother. Even though he was called “Chao” (Lord) as a descendent of Chiang Tung’s
lord, Chun was not in a position to inherit the full family fortune and honour, but rather
had to struggle to find his way as a commoner.
One important thing that Chun benefited from in his noble family background

89 The following description of Chao Chun’s life history is based on Chao Chun Sirorot,
Chiwaprawat nai chun sirorot thi chao khong khian lao wai eng: pho. so. 2439 - 2529 (A life
history of Mr. Chun Sirorot, which is written by himself: 1896 - 1986); Dr. Phra Maha Chanya
Sutthiyano (ed.), Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun (Life, thoughts, and works of Chao
Chun) (Bangkok: Borisat Amarin). The biography in the latter book was written from interviews
with Chao Chun by Phra Maha Chanya (Phenchai Sirorot, interview).
94
was an opportunity for higher education. Since most farmers then considered the
education of their children as a waste of opportunity to work90, Chun could not have had
an education if he had been from a commoner’s family. Chun was supported in his
education by his father and his stepmother, Chao Inthapat and Chao Mae Buaphan, who
also lived in Chiang Mai Province. He finished fourth grade in secondary school, which
few people had reached and he was qualified to become a government official. After
some work experience as a clerk of a school in Lampang, Chun continued his study in
the school for training teachers of agriculture in Nakhon Pathom for two years and
graduated from it in 1921. Based on this educational career, Chun established and
managed a similar school in Chiang Mai, and he later engaged in newly introduced cash
crop agriculture, such as tobacco.
Chun, after marrying Chao Surichai (a descendent of King Rama I from her
father’s lineage and of King Kawila of Lanna Thai Kingdom from her mother’s), with
whom he had ten children, had to struggle with his business, which was dukkha
(suffering) for him. When Chun succeeded in the tobacco business in 1933 - 1943, and
achieved stability and enough wealth, he became devoted in Buddhism on meeting
Luang Pu Sim Phutthacharo, a dhutaiiga monk. Chun first met Sim, in Amphoe
Chomthong, Chiang Mai Province, where he was evacuated from World War 11. Chun
started learning what life was in the Buddhism that was preached by Sim91. Chun
devoted his support to Sim’s first settlement in Chiang Mai until more support
established a temple for Sim, Wat Santitham, the first forest school of the Thammayut
temples in the north . Apart from Sim, Chun also listened to sermons of such famous
forest monks as Phra Achan Man and Luang Pu Waen, both of whom often came to
Chiang Mai for dhutaiiga ascetic practice, and occasionally gave sermons to people .
A few years after he became interested in the dhamma through his meeting
with Sim, Chun first read a book of Buddhadasa’s around 1944 - 1945. The book was
entitled, Kanpatibat tham (practising the dhamma), which his brother in Bangkok had

90 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 20.
91 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 69.
92 Phutthacharanuson, pp. 22 - 23; Prawat wat santitham, amphoe muang, changwat chiang mai,
thi raluk nai ngan chaloeng phra ubosot, phra chedi (A history of Wat Santitham, Muang District,
Chiang Mai Province, to commemorate the celebration of the hall and the pagoda) (1997).
9j Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, pp. 80 - 81, 83.
95
sent him from Bangkok. The most impressive things that Chun found in this book were
“to explain the meanings of the dhamma and to apply the dhamma in various many
aspects”, especially “to understand Buddhism as science”94. Chun started subscribing to
Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, as a life member. This was about twelve years
after Buddhadasa started his dhamma propagation in Suan Mokkh, Chaiya, and by this
time he was already recognised as a young monk scholar among elder monks and lay
intellectuals in Bangkok.
What was the difference that Chun found between conventional Buddhism in
the north, the school of forest monks who belonged to Phra Achan Man, and
Buddhadasa? According to his daughter, Phenchai Sirorot, who has been assisting the
most in Chun’s dhamma propagation activities among his children, the Buddhism that
was commonly practised in the north taught Chun to keep the precepts and to do good,
meritorious acts. These teachings did not work for the overcoming of dukkha or suffering
that Chun had in mind. Buddhadasa’s teaching was targeted to practise for the
overcoming of suffering, which was exactly what Chun wanted. Although he respected
Khruba Siwichai for his barami (charismatic perfect state) that attracted people to work
for his project of building the road to the mountain Doi Suthep in Chiang Mai95, Chun
was too busy with his own business when Siwichai was active. Phenchai remembered
that Chun respected Siwichai as a phra nak phatthana (development monk), but was not
much interested in his teachings96.
On the other hand, Chun found significance in the teachings of forest monks
who were in the school of Phra Achan Man, and he continued his support for Sim
throughout his life, but he considered Buddhadasa’s teachings were more suitable for
people in contemporary society. Those forest monk teachers taught to seclude oneself
from secular society in order to specialise in meditation by closing the eyes and by
reciting phuttho, which means “the Buddha”, in order to concentrate on breathing in and
out. Whereas, in the teaching of Buddhadasa, Phenchai explained that everyone can
train his or her mind to be in the state of sad, or awareness, at any time and in any place

94 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 83.
95 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 82.
96 Phenchai Sirorot, interview.
96
 07
right in the middle of worldly life . In other words, what Buddhadasa extracted from

the scriptures coincided with the needs of lay Buddhists who had to be responsible for

their duties in secular life.

In order to support Buddhadasa’s propagation of the dhamma, Chun basically

imitated what Buddhadasa had been doing for fifteen years. After Chun visited

Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh, and observed the activities of the Khana Thammathan in

Chaiya, he renovated in 1947 an abandoned temple in Chiang Mai, Wat Umong. Wat

Umong is estimated to have been built around 1380 - 1450 , which was during the

developing and prosperous age of the Lanna K ingdom ". Wat Umong is known for its

umong, or brick tunnel, which was made by King Ku Na (r. ca. 1355 - 1385) in order to

dedicate it to a scholarly ascetic monk, Thera Chan (1360-1370? - 1445), to live in and

do meditation practice there. According to one tradition, the monk, Thera Chan, read

through the whole Tipitaka and commentaries on the Vinäyapitaka within three and a half

months, and was able to answer any kind of dhamma questions. However, Thera Chan

preferred to wander in the forest so the king was unable to ask questions when he

wanted. The King Ku Na built the tunnel for Thera Chan to settle down in and do his

ascetic practice there100. The story of Thera Chan was paradigmatic for Chun to choose

this temple in order to work for the contemporary scholarly ascetic monk, Buddhadasa
and his group.

Also in 1947, Chun established a group of lay Buddhists for dhamma

propagation named the Khana Phuttha Nikhom, as Buddhadasa and his brother had the

Khana Thammathan in Chaiya. Chun also opened an office and a printing house for the

Khana Phuttha Nikhom, for propagating the dhamma through publications. However,

what the Khana Phuttha Nikhom needed the most was a monk leader, as Buddhadasa

97 Phenchai Sirorot, interview.

98 Hans Penth, History of Wat Umong (Chiang Mai: Buddhanikom), p. 3. The first article in this
booklet was reprinted from: Hans Penth, “A note on the history of Wat Umong Thera Jan (Chiang
Mai), The journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 62, Part 2 (July 1974). The booklet includes another
article by the same author: Hans Penth, “Additional notes on Wat Umong” (Februraryl987).
99 Hans Penth,/! brief history of Lan Na: civilizations o f North Thailand (Chiang Mai: Silkworm
Books, 1994), pp. 11 - 22.
100 Prawat wat umong suan phuttha-tham (A History of Wat Umong Suan Phuttha-tham) (Chiang
Mai: Khana Phutthanikhom), pp. 15 - 20. The English and Thai language editions of the Khana
Phutthanikhom’s booklets on the history of Wat Umong do not have identical contents. The English
edition gives a historian’s academic account on the history of the origins of the temple, whereas the
Thai edition is based on the tradition that local people have handed down from the past, as well as a

97
was in Suan Mokkh. Chun invited Buddhadasa in Chiang Mai in 1948, and asked him to
stay there101. Buddhadasa was not able to accept this offer, but instead, he sent other
monks from Suan Mokkh, including Phra Maha Phon Rattanasuan (1918 - 1993) and
Phra Maha Chawiang Mitsiri. Chun further requested Buddhadasa to send Pathumuttara
Bhikkhu, who wrote an article in Phutthasasana, which was “direct and easily
understandable”. The article, “phiksu kap kanriarai” (A bhikkhu and begging), criticised
monks who demanded lay people to support building their beautiful monasteries in
return for merit “. Buddhadasa contacted the monk author of the article in Penang to
ask him to co-operate in the work of the Khana Phuttha Nikhom in Chiang Mai. The
monk finally arrived in Chiang Mai in April 1949, and introduced himself to Chun as
Panyanantha Bhikkhu103. This was the first time that Panyanantha adopted his most
famous pseudonym104. The dhamma propagation activities of the Khana Phuttha
Nikhom became extremely popular in Chiang Mai because of the presence of
Panyanantha Bhikkhu, a gifted oratory monk.

Panyanantha Bhikkhu
Panyanantha Bhikkhu (1911 - )105, or Pan Sanecharoen before he was ordained,
was from a well-to-do farmer’s family in Phatthalung Province in Southern Thailand.
By the time of his arrival in Chiang Mai at the age of thirty-eight, Panyanantha had not
had an ordinary ordained life. Pan attended secondary school up until the middle of the
fourth year, which was quite an advanced level of education among his contemporaries,
but he had to leave his school because of his father’s illness. After that, Pan worked in
Phuket as a mine labourer. Pan preferred to spend his spare time with monks in a temple
rather than visiting prostitutes, or smoking and drinking as other labourers often did.
Pan was ordained as a novice at the age of eighteen in Ranong Province where he
assisted an elder monk. He returned home to be ordained as a monk, Phra Pan

translated article of Hans Penth, the history of the Khana Phutthanikhom, and Buddhist sayings.
101 Prawat wat umong suan phuttha-tham, p. 41.
102 Pathumuttara Phikkhu, “Phikkhu kap Kan-riarai”, Phutthasasana, vol. 15 No. 3 - 4 (August -
November 1947), pp. 155 -160.
103 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho kbit lae ngan khong chao chun, pp. 9 4 - 9 5 .
104 Dr. Phra Maha Chanya Sutthiyano (ed.), Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha (Life and
work of Ven. Panyanantha) (Bangkok: Borisat Amarin Printing Group, 1991), p. 145.
105 The following account of the biography of Panyanantha Bhikkhu is based on: Phra Maha Chanya,
Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha.
98
Pathumuttaro, when he was twenty in 1931. By early 1934 when Pan was studying for
the ecclesiastical examinations of nak tham and Pali, and was training himself to be a
dhamma preacher in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Lokanatha Bhikkhu, an Italian monk, came
to Thailand to recruit monks and novices for world Buddhist mission106. Pan decided to
join Lokanatha’s world mission as a leader of ten monks from the South. Pan went on
foot as far as Rangoon in Burma, where Lokanatha lost control of the group of Thai
monks.
After his return from Burma, Pan moved to Songkhla province. While he was
in Songkhla, Pan first read Buddhadasa’s journal, and visited Buddhadasa together with
Bunchuan to spend a rain retreat at Suan Mokkh . Pan started studying Pali in
Bangkok at the suggestion of Buddhadasa, who said, “If you are going to work for
Buddhism to make more progress, you have to acquire Pali to be able to apply it in your
work”108. Pan stayed at Wat Samphraya in Bangkok for five years until the end of 1941,
and passed the third and fourth levels of the Pali ecclesiastical examinations. While he
was studying Pali, Pan read a range of books, including those of Luang
Wichitwatthakan, King Vajiravudh’s Thetsana sua pa (Preaching to the Wild Tiger
Corps) and Pluk chai sua pa (Encouraging the Wild Tiger Corps), 500 stories of the
Jätakd, some works of Si Burapha, Malai Chuphinit, and of Sot Kuramarohit. Because of

his devoted reading of Luang Wichit’s works on history, Pan was called “the historian”
by his fellow monks109. Moreover, Pan attended and listened to the sermons of famous
preaching monks, and public lectures by lay intellectuals at Samakkhayachan
Samakhom, including the lectures of Luang Wichit110. This experience was essential for
the future celebrity preacher. Pan drew on his skill and knowledge for his sermons, as
well as his ability in oratory.
After the Asia-Pacific War started in December 1941, Pan decided to leave the
war damage in Bangkok and evacuate to the South, to Phatthalung and Songkhla, but he
found that the air raids were more severe in the South than in Bangkok. Eventually he
was recommended to look after a temple in Perak, Malaysia, he decided to take this

106 About Lokanatha, see Chapter I, footnote 86.

107 See more details in Chapter I, pp. 49 - 55.
108 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 108.
109 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 125.
110 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 126-127.
99
opportunity. On this occasion, Pan tried to teach himself English by reading an English
Buddhist journal, The Maha Bodhi, by which journal Buddhadasa and his brother had
also been inspired for a long time. However, at the Malaysian Chinese temple in Perak,
monks were expected to do rituals, blessing ceremonies, fortune telling, and make
amulets, and if they declined, then people spoke ill of them asking why they did not do
these things although they had been ordained for a long time. After two years, Pan
decided to move to Penang in order to study Chinese and to propagate the dhamma to
Chinese people. In the more favourable environment in Penang, where people had more
interests in the dhamma, Pan was to study English and Chinese, but he received a letter
from Buddhadasa in 1948 inviting him to propagate the dhamma in Chiang Mai with
Chao Chun Sirorot111. Pan took this opportunity to go to Chiang Mai after the rain
retreat of 1948 together with his interpreter monk from Penang, Phra Wong Chanthanet,
who later named himself Silanantha.

Propagation activities bv the Khana Phuttha Nikhom: 1949-1959

The dhamma propagation by Buddhadasa’s group in Chiang Mai started
working full-scale when Chun and Panyanantha became partners. In the work of
dhamma propagation, the devotion of lay Buddhists remains strong in terms of practical
support only if they are able to express the dhamma themselves. On the other hand, the
material and practical support by the laity is essential for a preaching monk if he wishes
to spread the dhamma to the mass of people in society because a monk’s possessions are
restricted by the vinaya. As in the case of Thammathat and Buddhadasa, the dhamma
propagation activities in Chiang Mai became most effective and fruitful when Chun’s
support and Panyanantha’s radical sermons were combined. No matter how adventurous
Phra Pan’s past experiences and his gifted oratory, he could not become a nationally
known preacher until he came to work with Chun in Chiang Mai as Panyanantha
Bhikkhu.
After inviting Panyanantha to stay at Wat Umong, Chiang Mai, the Khana
Phuttha Nikhom began to be able to follow the two major propagation methods of the
Khana Thammathan: preaching and journal publication. First, Chun rented land and a

111 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 129-139.
100
small building in the city centre of Chiang Mai in order to make it a place for
Panyanantha to give his preaching, and for a library and printing house. Chun
considered that Panyanantha needed a special preaching space of his own instead of
borrowing the premises of existing temples, because he expected that abbots of ordinary
temples would not accept Panyanantha who did not hold back his criticisms112. Also,
this was an attempt to make Buddhist teaching more accessible for people outside the
temples. There was no stringent etiquette to make people hesitant to go to the temple,
but the message of Buddhism was available in order for lay people to apply it in their
own lives. Panyanantha’s style of preaching was symbolic of the new era of Buddhism
which began to be propagated to the masses. Instead of sitting on the thammat (a
traditional preaching seat for a monk) with bailan (a part of the scriptures written on
palm leaf) in Pali to read slowly and solemnly, Panyanantha innovated by giving his
preaching briskly by standing up without reading any notes, as lay lecturers do for their
public speeches113. Panyanantha and his disciples believe that Panyanantha was the first
monk who preached while standing up114.
People in Chiang Mai felt Panyanantha’s standing preaching was unusual115,
but his methods gained far more popularity than the traditional ones. After the first four
or five occasions of his preaching, which was regularly twice a week on Sunday
morning and wan phra evening, the temporary hall for seventy persons became unable
to accommodate his audience. After two months, another temporary hall for a hundred
and fifty persons collapsed because of too many people, and his audience grew to two
thousand116. By the time of Panyanantha’s arrival in Chiang Mai in 1949, the Central
Thai language that Panyanantha used in his preaching was not a problem for the
ordinary people in the north because of the penetration of the national education
system117. The audience included not only the local people, but also Indian and Chinese
businessmen, as well as high level government officials appointed from Bangkok, such

112 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 96.
113 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 165.
114 Panyanantha and Phra Ratchawisutthimori, an assistant monk of Panyanantha, interview,
Nonthaburi, 7 October. They think that the first standing preaching of Panyanantha was at the train
station of Nakhon Si Thammarat before leaving for Bangkok to join the world mission of Phra
Lokanatha in 1934.
115 Phenchai Sirorot, interview.
116 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 97.
117 Phenchai Sirorot, interview.
101
as the governor of Chiang Mai Province and the director general of the fifth.court region
in the northern provinces118. It is said that on the day of Panyanantha’s preaching, there
were few people in the movie theatres119.
The tremendous popularity of Panyanantha’s preaching was assisted by Chun’s
propagation techniques. Chun bought a loudspeaker and an electricity generator from
Bangkok to prepare for Panyanantha’s preaching, so that many people would be able to
po
listen to him " . Chun also drove a publicity car around, which looked like the ones for
movie advertising, in order to invite people to attend Panyanantha’s preaching. These
were all the first attempts to apply these means for the preaching of a monk in Chiang
Mai121.
Apart from his style and propagation techniques, how was Panyanantha’s
message perceived by people? The content of Panyanantha’s preaching is characterised
as:

he changed from reading scriptures to expressing the dhamma by true knowledge;

instead of speaking of hidden depths, he expressed touchable reality in order to lead
to a revolution in everyday life; he clearly^ indicated many essential things, true
Buddhism, without any supernatural magic1"*2.

Because of his radical attitude toward supematuralism, Buddhadasa named Panyanantha

“n a kp a tiw a t saiyasat” (the revolutionist of supematuralism)123.

Another important characteristic of Panyanantha’s preaching was to make

critical remarks about powerful authorities without any hesitation. One example was his
lecture at a general meeting of the Chao Khana Changwat and Chao Khana Amphoe
monks, which was held in Chiang Mai. Elder monks of the Sangha came from Bangkok
to attend, and Panyanantha was invited as a guest lecturer. Panyanantha’s lecture was
entitled, ukho khit kan-phoei-phae” (a thought on propagation). In this lecture,
Panyanantha harshly criticised lazy monks at all levels. He said:

monks who are appointed to the position of propagation do not spread (phoei-phae)
anything but a lie while sprawled out (non phae) in his kuti (a hut for a monk).

118 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 97.
119 Phenchai Sirorot, interview.
120 “Mua than panyanantha phut thung chao chun sirorot” (When Ven. Panyanantha talked about
Chao Chun Sirorot) (Interview with Panyanantha Bhikkhu by Dr. Phra Maha Chanya Sutthiyano on
2 Februrary 1992), Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, pp. 190, 198.
121 Phenchai Sirorot, interview.
122 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 165 - 166.
123 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 166.
102
When Panyanantha was lecturing, an elder monk with the title of Somdet stood up,
approached and stared at Panyanantha in order to pressure him to stop speaking.
However, Panyanantha did not stop but rather made his speech even stronger until the
end. Next morning, the newspaper, Chaw nua (Northern people), reported this incident
in detail with the headline, “Than panya ao khon lek ti khanot hang nak rat” (Ven.
Panyanantha hits a sore point in the tail of king serpent with an iron hammer)124. This
episode shows Panyanantha’s critical speech about the realities of otherwise
untouchable authorities about which ordinary commoners are always unsatisfied but
were prevented from criticising. People could only clap their hands when they listened
to a speech as radical as Panyanantha’s.
Panyanantha’s popular sermons were published in booklets and in Chaw phut
(Buddhist people), the monthly journal of the Khana Phuttha Nikhom, this was their
second major means for propagating the dhamma. The journal was launched in May
1952 when Buddhadasa was invited in Chiang Mai. He suggested starting a journal in
IOC

order for more people to be able to read Panyanantha’s sermons ~ . In the journal,
Panyanantha used various pseudonyms to write different articles, just as Buddhadasa in
the beginning did in his journal Phutthasasana. For short stories for children, he used
the name, Panyasara; for the application of the dhamma to economics, politics, and
society, his pseudonym was Thammaphani; and for the dhamma and his travel reportage,
he chose the most well-known name, Bhikkhu Panyanantha . The journal, Chaw phut,
gained subscriptions from all over Thailand. The Khana Phuttha Nikhom distributed the
197
journal both by selling it and by free distribution .
The dhamma propagation activities of the Khana Phuttha Nikhom that Chun
started with Panyanantha became so popular that the project was expanded to build a
more solid and sophisticated public hall for giving dhamma lectures. The public hall
was named the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai (the Buddhist place, Chiang Mai). The
project to build the Phuttha Sathan began on 14 October 1951 by a joint general meeting
of the Buddhist Association of Thailand’s Chiang Mai branch, the Khana Phuttha
Nikhom, and the Young Buddhist Association’s Chiang Mai branch. The new building

124 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 227-228.
125 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 102.
126 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, p. 220.

103
complex included these three Buddhist organisation’s offices, a big hall for dhamma
lectures, a library, a museum, care facilities for aged people and orphans, a guesthouse,
and charity project facilities128. The costly building of 110,000 baht was funded by
donations from people who could afford only one baht for their share, as well as from
the King, elder monks in the Sangha, foundations, rich officials and businessmen129. In
February 1958, the main building opened, and the central committee for the
establishment of the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai was dissolved to become the Mulanithi
Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai (Foundation for the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai) that legally
owns the estates and controls the funding for the Phuttha Sathan130.
These purposes and activities in the Phuttha Sathan were indeed the extension
of the Khana Phuttha Nikhom in which Chun and Panyanantha were the main
motivators. Sanya Dhammasakdi, who is one of the founders of the Buddhist
Association of Thailand, and who moved to Chiang Mai because of appointment as the
director general of the fifth judicial court region in April 1951, became one of the most
committed persons to establish the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai. Sanya said:

Because this type o f place that propagates the dhamma is not a temple, it can bring
all kinds o f ordinary people in without any hesitation. A lso, the propagation has a
new method so that it is not restricted by rules and customs [as in a temple] which
would make people feel that they do not want to be restricted and thus not come to
listen to the dhamma m .

Another member of the central committee for the establishment, Udom Bunyaprasop,
who used to be the governor of Chiang Mai Province, called the Phuttha Sathan “a
temple of lay people”132. These remarks indicate that the Phuttha Sathan embodied in
itself the spread of the dhamma to lay people who belonged to a wide range of classes,
ethnicities, and occupations, which gained co-operation and encouragement from the

127 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho kbit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 106.
128 Sanya Thammasak, “Kamnoet phuttha sathan chiang mai” (The birth of the Phuttha Sathan
Chiang Mai), Khana kammakan klang chat tang phuttha sathan chiang mai (ed.), Phuttha sathan
chiang mai (A commemoration volume for the establishment o f the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai)
(1958), pp. 11 - 17.
129 Sanya Thammasak, “Kamnoet phuttha sathan chiang mai”, p. 13; “Rai phra nam - nam phu
borichak sang phuttha sathan chiang mai” (The list of donors’ names for the Phuttha Sathan Chiang
Mai), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 203 - 234.
130 “Kham Thalaeng” (announcement), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, p. 2.
131 Sanya Thammasak, “Phuttha sathan khu arai?” (What is the Phuttha Sathan?), Phuttha sathan
chiang mai, p. 52.
Udom Bunyaprasop, “Kham rap saraphap” (Confession), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, p. 31.
104
Sangha133.
Nevertheless, in order to build a huge, enduring hall, the alliance of the civil
and military bureaucrats, business people, and the King were more significant, and only
a very few honoured the initiating role of Chun and the Khana Phuttha Nikhom in the
commemoration book for the opening of the Phuttha Sathan. Perhaps, wealthier, more
influential people than Chun became dominant in the costly project for the permanent
building. In the commemoration book, an article contributed under the name “Chaw
phuttha nikhom” (a person in the Phuttha Nikhom) related, “These days no one calls it
the library of the Phuttha Nikhom, but the library of the Phuttha Sathan. Such things as
the loudspeaker and other equipment for the public lecture, as well as the persons of the
Phuttha Nikhom who took the very role that made people know of, and more people
attend, also belong to the Phuttha Sathan. ... [When] the name of the Phuttha Nikhom
has been absorbed and disappeared into the name of the Phuttha Sathan, perhaps there
will still remain the very work that the Phuttha Nikhom has been doing [in the Phuttha
Sathan]”134. Instead of the unwealthy Khana Phuttha Nikhom and Chun, the Asia
Foundation, which manoeuvred to promote anti-communism in Thailand in connection
with the CIA, donated an incomparable amount of money to the project of the Phuttha
Sathan, and the samnakngan thalaeng khao amerikan (probably, US1S) donated many
books to its library135. In the political situation of Thailand in the 1950s, the project of
the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai could possibly be taken over for political purposes
which intended to utilise and promote Buddhism as an anti-communist ideology .
In 1960, Panyanantha was invited to be abbot of a newly built temple in
Nonthaburi Province, Wat Chonlaprathan, which was dedicated by Mom Luang
Chuchat Kamphu, the director of the Department of Irrigation. Chun did not oppose

1 J Sanya Thammasak, “Phuttha sathan khu arai?”, p. 52. In the commemoration book, there are
congratulatory speeches from the Supreme Patriarch and the Ecclesiastical Primate (Sangkha nayok),
as w ell as an article contributed by the ecclesiastical head o f the region 5 (Chao khana truatkan phak
5) that expressed his approved in the project of the Phuttha Sathan (Somdet Phra Wachirayanawong
(the Supreme Patriarch), “Phra owat kham khwan”, pp. 5 - 8 ; Somdet Phra Wanrat (the
Ecclesiastical Primate), “Kham khwan”, pp. 9 - 10; Phra Thammaratchanuwat, “Ruang kiao duai
phuttha sathan chiang mai”, Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 18 - 27).
34 Chao phuttha nikhom, “Phuttha nikhom kap phuttha sathan” (the Phuttha Nikhom and the
Phuttha Sathan), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, p. 66.
135 “Rai phra nam - nam phu borichak sang phuttha sathan chiang mai”, Phuttha sathan chiang mai ,
p. 203; Sanya Thammasak, “Kamnoet phuttha sathan chiang mai”, p. 16.
36 cf. Chapter V, especially see pp. 239 - 240.
105
Panyanantha’s move from Chiang Mai, because it was more convenient for
Panyanantha, who was already a national figure, to settle in Central Thailand near the
capital . After Panyanantha, the preaching monk of tremendous popularity, left for
Wat Chonlaprathan, Wat Umong changed its role. When Panyanantha was in Chiang
Mai, Wat Umong only functioned as accommodation for monks. All the preaching was
given outside Wat Umong, and there were only a few people visiting the temple for
merit-making and ceremonies, which are less significant in the teachings of Buddhadasa
and Panyanantha. The later and current abbot of Wat Umong, Phra Khru Sukhanthasin
started to give sermons in the northern dialect in the premises of Wat Umong during the
rains retreat. According to Phra Khru Sukhanthasin, who is also from Phatthalung
Province in the south, where Panyanantha was from, villagers do not like his sermon if
it is not in the northern dialect . The temple, which had been renovated for the leading
dhamma preacher, is now localised.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the activities of the Khana
Phuttha Nikhom have declined. The journal, Chaw phut, has continued to be published,
the library in Wat Umong is neatly arranged, and most recently, the Khai khunnatham,
or the camp for nurturing the virtues of schoolchildren, has been organised since 1991
by Di. Phra Maha Chanya Sutthiyano . The dhamma propagation was even extended
by those monks and lay Buddhists who were funded by a scholarship of Chun to study
and complete degrees in India, such monks as Silanantha Bhikkhu and Wiwekkanantha
Bhikkhu, who went to teach Buddhism in Britain and America140. The present situation
at Wat Umong Suan Phuttha-tham indicates that the activities of the Khana Phuttha
Nikhom’s dhamma propagation of the school of Suan Mokkh have taken root in the
north, and are still expanding from it.

13' Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 239-240.
138 Phra Khru Sukhanthasin, interview, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999.
139 Phenchai Sirorot, interview; Dr. Phra Maha Chanya Sutthiyano, “Chao chun sirorot: phu mi lom
haichai pen thamma” (Chao Chun Sirorot: a person who had a breathing of the dhamma),
Thammaphinanthanakan nai ngan chapanakit sop: chao chun sirorot (a cremation volume for Chao
Chun Sirorot) (1995), p. 14.
140 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong chao chun, p. 107.
106
4. Further propagation to the masses after the 1950s

Especially after the 1950s, the dhamma propagation of Buddhadasa and his
disciples was assisted and promoted by many outside groups. As I have examined above,
Buddhadasa first expressed his ideas mainly in the journals which he founded himself
and with his brother, after 1940 his dhamma propagation was given support by the
Buddhist Association of Thailand, and after 1947 by the Khana Phuttha Nikhom in
Chiang Mai. In the case of the Buddhist Association, the Association did not have a
purpose that specifically propagated Buddhadasa’s preaching, but the opportunities that
the Association gave to Buddhadasa were very significant for him to become known to
the lay Buddhist elite in Bangkok. The Khana Phuttha Nikhom was established in order
to spread the Buddhist dhamma that Buddhadasa and his fellow monks had been
preaching. The Khana Phuttha Nikhom followed the ways the Khana Thammathan had
been using in Chaiya, such as organising a place for the public dhamma lectures and a
library in the centre of the city, and having a printing house of its own for publishing
booklets and its journal. Although the Khana Phuttha Nikhom in Chiang Mai had a
management independent of the Khana Thammathan in Chaiya except for occasional
consultations with Buddhadasa, the Khana Phuttha Nikhom functioned almost as a
branch of the Khana Thammathan in Chiang Mai. The Khana Phuttha Nikhom was the
first and perhaps the most successful case following the style of what Buddhadasa and
his brother had been doing in Chaiya. After the 1950s, there emerged more groups that
assisted Buddhadasa in propagating the dhamma in various ways which were
nevertheless the same as the Khana Thammathan had been doing, but from time to time
also in co-operation with Suan Mokkh. After the 1950s through the efforts of those
many groups, Buddhadasa’s teaching became available at more locations, and found
different places to be developed.
The assistance given to Buddhadasa’s propagation can be classified into four
categories: publishing books; giving public speeches and panel discussions; inviting or
visiting Buddhadasa to a retreat or for lectures; and assisting the activities of
Buddhadasa’s disciple monks. The propagation efforts of book publication can be
further sub-divided into at least three types: running a publisher and a bookshop;
publishing lay supporters’ own ideas that expanded on Buddhadasa’s preaching; and
107
publishing for free distribution. The book propagation was spread further by individuals
who bought a certain amount of Buddhadasa’s and related books from those publishers
in order to distribute them for free, most often for commemorative occasions.
In terms of chronological sequence, the first of these activities was in the 1950s
and the 1960s a number of lay disciples of Buddhadasa established their own
organisations to spread the dhamma taught by Buddhadasa. Some of the most important
groups that were established during this period included the Suwichan Bookshop
(opened in 1953), the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism in India (Ongkan
funfu phutthasasana nai prathet india; established around 1958), the Suan Usom
Foundation (established in 1958), the Group of the Sublime Life Mission (established in
1967), and the Thammabucha Bookshop (opened in 1969). It was also during this
period that Buddhadasa was invited by many groups of government officials, student
clubs, as well as other religious groups to give lectures and preach at their places.
During this period, the propagation method of book publication was widely adopted by
many of the above-mentioned groups. Also, from 1958 until 1973, public speeches and
panel discussions on the dhamma were in general very active, especially at the Lan
Asok (Asoke Courtyard) in Wat Mahathat in Bangkok. As for temple public speeches
for Buddhadasa’s dhamma propagation, important roles were taken by Pun
Chongprasoet and Sawai Kaewsom as a part of the activities of the Organisation for the
Restoration of Buddhism and the Sublime Life Mission.
From the late 1960s through to the early 1980s, Buddhadasa stressed issues in
contemporary society to groups of people who came to Suan Mokkh to hear him preach
and have training in dhamma practice. Around the mid-1970s in parallel with
Buddhadasa’s concerns, a group, which later started calling themselves “engaged
Buddhists”, became interested in Buddhadasa’s preaching of Buddhism that could be
applied to social issues. Those organisations in particular and groups under the
advisement of Sulak Sivaraksa, such as the Komon Khimthong Foundation (established
in 1971) and the editorial board of the journal, Pacharayasan, promoted Buddhadasa’s
social teachings in their publications. The group of engaged Buddhists also organised
seminars and public panel discussions that were based on Buddhadasa’s ideas on
Buddhism and society, which they published in book form after some seminars.
After the 1980s, more publishers who put special emphasis on dhamma books
108
by Buddhadasa were established. In this period, Buddhadasa’s dhamma books in
fashionable layouts became available from more commercialised publishers through the
book distribution network. Such a new type of dhamma book business included the
Sukkhaphap Chai Publisher (established in 1982) and the Thammasapha Publisher, as
well as the above-mentioned publishers who were established on Sulak Sivaraksa’s
advice. The publisher, Arun Witthaya, also distributes Buddhadasa’s books on a
comparatively smaller scale. Some old type of dhamma propagation groups, such as the
Sublime Life Mission and the Suan Usom, still continue supplying booklets of
Buddhadasa’s preaching either at a low price or for free. Other groups of this old type
were newly established in the late 1980s, including the Group for Dhamma Studies and
Practice, and the series of Phutthathat bannalai - dulayaphak anuson (Buddhadasa’s
works - for the memory of [Phra] Dulayaphak; this series has been published by a
daughter of Phra Dulayaphak, who was a judge friend of Buddhadasa). There are also
some individual writers who were inspired by Buddhadasa to write their own books on
the dhamma, such as Maj. Gen. Dej Tulavardhana, the author of the series of Rian
phutthasasana yang panyachon (Studying Buddhism as an intellectual). In the 1990s
new journals came out in order to follow on from and expand Buddhadasa’s ideas, for
example, Dok mokkh (mokkh blossoms), and Panithan (Pali: panidhäna; strong
determination).
After the late 1980s, when the brothers Buddhadasa and Thammathat became
old, the Khana Thammathan, which had been legally registered as the Dhammadana
Foundation (Thammathan Mulanithi) in 1953, shifted its leadership of propagation
activities to Thammathat’s youngest son, Metta Phanit, and other lay disciples. The
contemporary Dhammadana Foundation has been supported by important members of
some independent propagation organisations, such as Suan Usom, the Sublime Life
Mission, the publishers Sukkhaphap Chai and former student Buddhist club members.
Especially after the death of Buddhadasa in 1993, the new staff of the Dhammadana
Foundation renewed the journal, Phutthasasana, in co-operation with young monks in
Suan Mokkh and with Metta Phanit. Suan Mokkh also expanded its activities under the
leadership of the new abbot, Phra Achan Pho Chanthasaro, and young monks and

109
ubasika, who organise both regular and occasional meditation retreats141.
Among all these important propagation groups and individuals for
Buddhadasa’s dhamma teachings, this section will focus on three, the publisher
Suwichan, the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism, and the Sublime Life
I

Mission Foundation In relation to the Sublime Life Mission’s support, this section
will further trace activities of monks in Suan Mokkh “branches” in the provinces and in
Laos. By this focus, dhamma propagation through the book distribution of these three
groups and public speeches in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Sublime Life Mission’s
further propagation activities until the present will be examined. Their activities
embodied some part of the contemporary Buddhist public sphere in Thailand.

The Suwichan Bookshop

The Suwichan Bookshop was the first publisher and bookshop in Bangkok that
specifically dealt with Buddhadasa’s books, and was independent from the Khana
Thammathan in Chaiya. The bookshop was opened in 1953 by Sa’at Watcharaphai
(1913 - 1987)143. Sa’at had had relatively successful educational and occupational
careers amongst his contemporaries before opening Suwichan144. During his work at the
Parliament Office, Sa’at read books by Buddhadasa, and with his friend at the Law
School, Kiti Sihanon, visited Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh145. Sa’at decided to quit his
work as an assistant director of the reception division, and opened the Suwichan
Bookshop “in order to propagate Buddhism, especially the teachings and works of
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu”146.

141 See Chapter I, p. 48.

142 Some other important groups will be discussed in other chapters on related topics, such as the
group of Sulak Sivaraksa in Chapter VI.
43 The following details about Sa’at Watcharaphai are based on \Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha than
phloeng sop: nai s a ’at watcharaphai (Commemoration for the cremation: Mr. Sa’at Warcharaphai)
(1987); Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 314-315, 539; Phra Pracha Pasannathammo and Santisuk
Sophonsiri (eds.), Phap chiwit 80 pi phutthathat phikkhu (Pictorial biography of 80 years of
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) (Bangkok: Mulanithi sathian koset - nakhaprathip and Samnakphim
mulanithi komon khimthong, 1986), pp. 202, 208-209; and Suvimol Vajrabhaya (Suwimon
Watcharaphai), the eldest daughter of Sa’at, interview, Bangkok, 29 August 2000.
144 He began his primary education at Assumption School, completed the eighth grade in Wat
Thepsirin High School and graduated from the Law School, which later became Thammasat
University. After that, Sa’at worked for the ordinary commissioner of the library section and the
commissioner of the secretary general of the Parliament Office from 1934 to 1947.
14:5 Suvimol Vajrabhaya, interview.
146 Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
no
 As both Sa’at’s wife and Buddhadasa wrote in Sa’at’s cremation volume, the
Suwichan Bookshop was not a business that sought a good profit, but “a kind of
dhamma propagation in the form of retailing books” 147 because Sa’at had enough
family fortune to support himself and his family . Moreover, the bookshop functioned
as a place for sonthana tham (dhamma conversation) between Sa’at, his friends at
school and work, and customers149. The shop was in Samyot, near the Wangburapha
area, where many shops dealing with books and educational tools were located. Because
of this location, schoolteachers and book lovers could come across to the Suwichan.
Among the customers were Fak na Songkhla, a famous lawyer defending the murder
suspect of King Rama VIII; Kuang, then a Singaporean engineer and later ordained as
Buddhadasa’s disciple, Phra Kuang Muttiphattho; Haj Prayun Watthayanakun, the most
devoted Muslim follower of Buddhadasa; and Arunwati Suwannakanit, then a school
inspector and one of the founders of Suan Usom, the place for Buddhadasa’s women
disciples’ dhamma practice 150. These people were important lay disciples of
Buddhadasa who exchanged ideas and built networks through conversations with Sa’at,
who liked to talk with his customers151. In other words, the Suwichan functioned as a
Buddhist public sphere for the lay disciples of Buddhadasa.
Not only did Sa’at give advice which books his customers should read, he also
listened to requests from customers about what kind of stories should be published next
time152. For publishing, Sa’at did proof reading by himself153, and advertised the books
at his shop in leading magazines in Bangkok134. However, unlike Pun Chongprasoet,
Sa’at did not put his comments or opinions into his publications of Buddhadasa’s books,
except for a few introductory notes155. Though his ideas were in his discussions with his
customers, Sa’at let Buddhadasa take the role of preaching the dhamma, and he only

147 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana” (Benediction), Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.

148 Suvimol Vajrabhaya, interview; Arunwati Suwannakanit, “Ngan phoei phrae phutthasasana mam
thawai than phra achan ‘phutthathat phikkhu’” (Co-operative propagation activities to commemorate
Venerable Master Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
149 Manlika Watcharaphai (Sa’at’s wife), untitled condolence, Anuson: nai s a ’at watcharaphai;
“Pho khong rao” (our father), Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
1:30 Phra Pracha, Lau wai..., pp. 314-315, 539; Arunwati Suwannakanit, “Ngan phoei phrae
phutthasasana mam th a w a i...”.
51 Arunwati Suwannakanit, “Ngan phoei phrae phutthasasana mam thaw ai...”.
1;>2 Manlika Watcharaphai, untitled condolence, Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
153 “Pho khong rao”, Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
154 Phra Pracha and Santisuk, Phap chiwit 80 pi phutthathat phikkhu, p. 202.

Ill
assisted the management of its propagation.
The Suwichan bookshop had to be closed in 1974 because of Sa’at’s illness. A
similar role of being a bookshop which specifically dealt with the books of Buddhadasa
and his group was taken on by the Thammabucha bookshop, which was run by Wirot
Siriat, the head of the Sublime Life Mission.

The Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism

For popularising Buddhadasa’s books with explanatory notes and essays on his
works, the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism was very influential. The
activities of the organisation was supported by the enthusiasm and uniquely critical
thoughts of Pun Chongprasoet (1913? - 1980)136, who was the founder and in fact the
only member of the organisation.
Pun also had a comparatively celebrated educational and occupational career.
He also graduated from an elite high school, Wat Thepsirin, on him were conferred two
degrees from the nation’s best universities, Chulalongkom and Thammasat, and he also
qualified as a high-school teacher. Pun was among the first generation of students who
received a full bachelors’ degree at Chulalongkom University in 1935, and among only
134 students who completed the law degree at Thammasat University in 1940 . In
other words, Pun was one of the few people with access to the highest education that
was available in Thailand at that time. After completing his education, Pun worked for
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and near to the end of his career, he was the Secretary
of the Royal Thai Embassy in India. Pun resigned from this position in 1957158, because

15:3 Suvimol Vajrabhaya, interview.

1:36 The data on Pun’s biography is fragmentary, and the year of his birth is uncertain. Wirot Siriat
estimates that Pun was around sixty-five when he died in 1980, while Sitawat estimates he was
around seventy-two. If Pun was about twenty-two when he received the bachelors’ degree in 1935 at
Faculty of Arts in Chulalongkom University, he would have been born in 1913 (Wirot Siriat,
interview, Bangkok, 12 March 1999; Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko, interview, Nonthaburi, 30 April
1999).
137 As Pun used to write in his signature, O. Bo., Po. Mo., and Tho. Bo., he had the degrees and
qualification of Aksonsat bandit (Bachelor of Arts), Prakatniyabat khru matthayom (high-school
teacher qualification), and Thammasat bandit (Bachelor of Law) (Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang -
chit doem thae (Emptiness, empty mind, and the true, original mind) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana)). Although I have not been able to trace Pun’s precise biography anywhere, these
years of his graduation were located in the name list of students at Chulalongkom University and
Thammasat University by Prof. Eiji Murashima. I am grateful for his supplying this information.
1:38 Pun Chongprasoet, “Nae nam nangsu ‘Khwam-ngom’ngai’” (Book recommendation,
“Superstitious b elief”), Tai di kwa yu ru (Is it better to die rather than to live?) (Samutprakan:
112
 ?ffUfupn-3piii^-SpuSwiivi
«I ei

na*

u n u iM4i/ia i/in sf

€ 1 1 1 0 9

il^ n d ^ <luqi<luma<ali/iu
!:
^giiA naaüvm
4
asiist u n
im*

ilu {mhsUl?3

(tN em uebSvra)

to /-

Figure 2. A booklet by the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism.

The Buddha image in the middle consists of some Thai script words, “Mai hen kae tua” (Not to be
egotistical).
he disagreed with a government project to build a Thai temple in India139. He seems to
have continued his job at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the head of the Economic
Division in the Department of the United Nations in April 1959160. After his retirement,
Pun lived on a pension161, and devoted himself to the dhamma propagation activities of
the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism in India, in which he was the only
member.
The establishment of the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism in India
derived from Pun’s experience in India before he resigned from his position there in
1957. Pun was very disappointed with the fact that in India, where the Buddha had
based his teaching of the dhamma, only a few people believe in Buddhism. Pun thought
that Buddhism in India had been taken over by Muslims who were not very tolerant of
other religions, and by Brahman scholars who had incorporated Buddhist philosophy
into their system by defining the Buddha as an incarnation of the Hindu god, Vishnu.
However, what was more important than these, according to Pun, were the beliefs of the
Indian Buddhists, especially the teachings and practices of monks. Pun explained that
monks imported beliefs in thewada (deities) and thepphachao (gods) from Brahmanism,
as well as associated rituals, and made Buddhists believe in saiyasat (supematuralism)
instead of the teaching of the Buddha. Pun argued that these monks were most
responsible for the disappearance of Buddhism from India . Pun’s main concern was
to criticise the elder monks who were intoxicated with wealth and the respect generated
by belief in the supernatural in contemporary Buddhism, which he thought should be
replaced by the true teaching of the Buddha.
Pun learnt of Buddhadasa’s preaching by January 1956, when Buddhadasa
travelled in India with the group of Chao Chun Sirorot from October 1955 onwards.
During Buddhadasa’s stay in India, Pun met him and was photographed with him .
Before April 1959, Pun established the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism in
India, and printed 50,000 copies of books on “true Buddhism” in order to distribute it

Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1964), p. 7.

159 Sawai Kaewsom, interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
160 Pun Chongprasoet, “Mahorasop thang winyan” (Amusement for the soul), Phutthathat Phikkhu,
Khu mu manut (A handbook for humankind) (Bangkok: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1959), p. 171.
161 Sawai Kaewsom and his friend, interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
162 Pun Chongprasoet, “Nae nam nangsu ‘Khwam ngom’ngai’”, pp. 7 - 9 .
163 Phra Pracha and Santisuk (ed.), Phap chiwit 80 p i phutthathat phikkhu, p. 216.
114
for free to people in India and in Thailand. The books Pun published included English

works, such as Through light to peace and Golden drops, and Thai works, such as

Khong khwan, Khong fak nak-phawana, and a work of Buddhadasa in an abridged

edition, Khumsap chak phra ot chabap yo (A treasure trove from the Buddha’s words:

abridged edition)164. Pun’s Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism in India either

distributed books for free, or sold them at cost price16:5 in bookshops that specialised in

Buddhism, such as Suwichan166 and Mahamakut Buddhist University167, or he received

orders to print his publications to be distributed at celebrations for birthdays, the

receiving of ecclesiastical titles, for ordination, for katin, or at cremation ceremonies168.

In 1957, the 2500th year, or the middle o f the Buddhist Era, Pun was

temporarily ordained as a monk for four months, and spent the rains retreat in Suan

Mokkh in order to celebrate the year 2500. During his stay at Suan Mokkh, Pun

summarised, with advice from Buddhadasa, Buddhadasa’s preaching for the assistant

judges in May 1956, which was entitled, Lak phra phutthasasana (The principles of

Buddhism). Pun published his summary as Khu mu manut (A handbook for humankind)

in the name of Buddhadasa in the following year, 1958169. One o f Buddhadasa’s

best-known works, Khu mu manut , was in fact a summary by Pun Chongprasoet, in

164 Pun Chongprasoet, “Kham kho rong” (A request), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Khu mu manut, p. 169.1
am not sure who were the authors of these works that Pun mentioned. Khum sap chap phra ot is a
work by Buddhadasa, but the abridged edition was most possibly summarised by Pun.
165 Pun found out that people often did not find any value if his books were free. Thus, he later
decided to sell his books at cost price (Pun Chongprasoet, “Kham kho rong”, p. 170).
166 Sawai said that Pun asked to sell his publications at Suwichan Bookshop (Sawai Kaewsom,
interview, 21 March 1999).
167 Wirot wrote that he bought Buddhadasa’s books that were published from the Organisation for
the Restoration of Buddhism at the bookshop of the Mahamakut Buddhist University in 1958 (Wirot
Siriat, “Tai di kwa yu?” (Better to die rather than to live?), Tai di kwa yu ru, p. 5).
168 Pun Chongprasoet, “Kham kho rong”, p. 168.
169 Although the volume of Khu mu manut that I referred to was printed in April 1959, the book was
very probably first published in 1958. This is because the forwards by Buddhadasa and Pun are
dated January 1958, and Wirot Siriat, who was deeply impressed by the book, remembers that he
read Khu mu manut at the end of 1958 (Wirot Siriat, a co-worker of Pun for the dhamma propagation,
interview, Bangkok, 12 March 1999).
170 The English edition, A handbook for humankind, and translations into other languages are based
on Pun’s summary instead of Buddhadasa’s own preaching. However, in 1988, the Thammasapha
Publisher published a book, Khu mu manut chabap sombun (A handbook for humankind: complete
edition), which was Buddhadasa’s whole unsummarised preaching to the assistant judges in 1956,
even though the title, Khu mu manut, was originally given by Pun to his summary. Thammasapha’s
Khu mu manut chabap sombun is in turn identical to Lak phra phutthasasana, which was published
from the Khana Thammathan, and is still published from Sukkhaphap Chai (Phutthathat Inthapanyo,
Khu mu manut chabap sombun (Bangkok: Thammasapha, 1988, 1992); Phra Ariyananthamuni
(Phutthathat Inthapanyo), Lak phra phutthasasana: oprom phuchuai phuphiphaksa run raek, pho. so.
115
which Pun simplified the Buddhist technical terms in Pali and their formulaic Thai
translations into plain language. Buddhadasa agreed with Pun’s summary, as well as his
intention to begin dhamma propagation activities. In the congratulatory forward to Khu
mu manut, Buddhadasa wrote:
As far as I have examined the intention and practice, I would like to approve the
activities of the people who assist propagating the dhamma as I have explained
through free distribution, by funds that are donated from people and groups with
faith, instead of profit seeking171.

Many people became interested in Buddhadasa’s preaching through Pun’s summary,

Khu mu manut. Among the earliest readers was Wirot Siriat, who could overcome his
mental disorder because of it, and he devoted the rest of his life to propagation of the
dhamma. A reason of the popularity of Khu mu manut was perhaps because it was most
suitable as an introduction, and is the least radical among the publications from the
Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism.
The unique character of Pun’s publications of Buddhadasa’s works was his
commentary notes on articles that would authorise and support his own opinions. For
example, Tamra du phra lae winai khong phiksu (A field-guide to monks and their
precepts), another popular publication of the Organisation for the Restoration of
Buddhism, was a work of Buddhadasa edited and commented on by Pun. In the
beginning of the book, Pun put a part of the Thetsana sua pa (Preaching to the Wild
Tiger Corps) by King Vajiravudh, who criticised monks who intend to gain offerings for
a living, and argued that the only appropriate medicine for monks is for lay people to
select monks worthy of respect172. After presenting the argument of King Vajiravudh as
an authorised critique of unpraiseworthy monks, Pun wrote in his introduction that there
are good texts in the Tipitaka that teach us how to distinguish monks who are worthy of
support. The texts, which were originally translated from Pali and edited as Khum sap
chak phra ot (A treasure trove from the Buddha’s words) by Buddhadasa, included for

2499 (The Principles of Buddhism: preaching for the assistant judges in the first generation, 1956)
(Bangkok: Sukkhaphap Chai, 1990)).
171 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Anumothana” (Benediction), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Khu mu manut
(Bangkok: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1959), p. ko.
172 “Phra ratcha prarop khong phra bat somdet phra mongkut klao chao yu hua (Khat ma chak bot
phra ratcha niphon kan thi 9, thetsana sua p a )” (A statement by King Vajiravudh (selected from his
writing in chapter 9, Preaching to the Wild Tiger Corps)), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Tamra du phra lae
winai khong phiksu (originally published from: Bangkok: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1959; the
volume referred here was published from: Bangkok: Thammasapha, 1994).
116
instance, Buddha’s preaching that indicated eight causes that make monks deteriorate
who have not yet completed their practice to achieve nibbäna. The eight causes were: 1)
Being a person who is satisfied with the work of construction; 2) Being a person who is
satisfied with chatting; 3) Being a person who is satisfied with sleeping; 4) Being a
person who is satisfied with making comrades; 5) Being a person who does not control
their eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind; 6) Being a person who does not know the
limit in eating; 7) Being a person who is satisfied with an act that causes bodily
sensation; 8) Being a person who is satisfied with expanding activities that take a long
time . Even though this story was cited from the classical Buddhist text, no one who
ever lived in Thailand can help recalling monks living in their neighbourhood. It was as
a kind of caution to his fellow monks when Buddhadasa, a monk, referred to this story;
but it turned out to be very radical to the ordained when a lay believer, Pun, started
propagating such stories.
Pun’s activities distributing dhamma books of this kind were certainly insulting
for many monks. In 1978 Pun even started sending his dhamma books, including many
radical publications, to elder administrative monks, such as ecclesiastical heads of
provinces, amphoe (district), and tambon (an administrative group of villages), all over
Thailand as New Year’s greetings. Pun rationalised his act by saying that although his
organisation had published and distributed forty-five books to promote
lokuttara-dhamma, ordinary monks did not read the truth that would decrease their
income. However, if monks and teachers misunderstood Buddhism as Brahmanism or
animism, Pun envisaged that the teachings of the Buddha would be destroyed. Thus,
Pun decided to distribute his publications to every high school all over Thailand174. His
act was challenging.
Pun’s radical dhamma propagation was not only by book distributions. Pun
explained the dhamma by showing slides of the religious situations in India. Pun called
this “a new method to demonstrate Buddhism”175. Apart from showing the historical

173 “Phiksu o e” (An idle/inactive/inefficient monk), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Tamra du phra lae winai
khongphiksu, p. 12.
174 Pun Chongprasoet, “Phuttha phot: kan hai thamma pen than yom chana kan hai than thang
puang” (The Buddha’s saying: giving the dhamma is the alms that would win any kind of alms),
Phutthathat, Thamma thi khrai khan mai dai (The dhamma that no one can oppose) (Samutprakan:
Ongkan funfu phutthasasana).
172 Pun Chongprasoet, “Mahorasop thang winyan”, p. 171.
117
ruins of Buddhism, Pun’s slides showed superstitious religious beliefs and practices in
India , where Buddhism had almost totally disappeared. According to one of the
audience who attended, Pun showed a picture of the linga which Hindus worship, and
explained that the Thai should not be as “superstitious” as them17. For Pun, the
“superstitious” beliefs and rituals of Hindu origin had been incorporated into the actual
practices of Thai Buddhists, and have been a significant ideological justification for
donations. Those slides, which would offend “superstitious” ritual caretakers, were
brought by Pun to temples and schools, in other words, public places for everyone to
enter, in order to show them to many people who passed by178.
Pun’s activities were very radical and insulting to monks, but he was given
some credit. For one thing, Pun was helped by his elite occupational career. Phra
Sithawat, then a young novice and monk studying at Wat Mahathat, believed that he
would never be arrested for radical words because Pun must have been respected for his
work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pun was once even allowed to talk on tamnak
at Wat Mahathat, which was an honourable platform on which to give preaching179.
Moreover, Pun’s intentions and opinions were recognised by some progressive monks.
Although Phra Sithawat had to keep it a secret that he helped Pun to show slides, he
liked Pun’s determined attitude for the sake of the true teaching of the Buddha. Even the
then abbot of Wat Mahathat, Chao Khun Phra Phimolatham, praised and promoted
Pun’s activities in his personal capacity. Phra Phimolatham said, according to Phra
Sithawat, “There should be such a person as Pun. Then Buddhism will be clean and
pure”. However, the abbot could not allow Pun to do everything that he wanted in the
temple, because Pun became a problem with other elder monks. Pun was finally almost
prohibited from entering the premises of Wat Mahathat180.
Although Pun picked up radical aspects of Buddhadasa’s works for his

176 Pun listed the titles of his slides as: “Sangwetchaniyasathan” (Four holy places of Buddhism: the
places of birth, enlightenment, first preaching, and final nibbana of the Buddha), “Thewalok” (The
world of gods), “Rusi chi pluai” (Naked ascetics), “Khantha kuti Phra Phuttha Chao” (The Buddha’s
scented room), “Phutthakhaya” (Bodh Gaya), “Saranatha” (Samath), “Nalantha” (Nalanda), and “Pa
himmaphan” (Himavant Forest, or a forest in the Himalayas) (Pun Chongprasoet, “Mahorasop thang
winyan”, p. 171).
177 A friend of Sawai Kaewsom, who interrupted my interview with Sawai, a comment, Bangkok,
21 March 1999.
178 A friend of Sawai Kaewsom, a comment.
179 Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko, interview, Bangkok, 30 April 1999.
1S0 Phra Sithawat, interview.
118
dhamma propagation activities, he was supported by many people who donated money
to his publications. What did actually attract people to Pun, as well as to Buddhadasa
through Pun’s activities? One of the answers was perhaps a feeling of fun in hearing a
radical criticism for a corrupted authority from a just viewpoint that is supported by
scriptural authenticity as explored by Buddhadasa. With a religious truthfulness, Pun
spoke for the common people who were usually unable to confront their superiors by
speaking up. Pun functioned as a voice of the people in the Buddhist public sphere of
Thailand.

The Lan Asok: a place for Buddhist discussions, and Sawai Kaewsom
The Lan Asok is a courtyard located in the premises of Wat Mahathat. Through
the gate of the temple facing toward the Tha Phra Chan, nowadays we find a car park
between the building of the Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University on the right hand
side, and that of the Aphitham Chotika Witthalayai on the left hand side. Although the
premises now look quite narrow because of the crowd of cars, there are asoka trees that
give shade from strong sunlight. Under them, stone benches are placed to sit on, and
also some traders sell drinks and fruits. People, especially book lovers, remember that
this place used to have many old book traders who spread their wares on the ground and
sold at very low prices every weekend and wan phra at least until the end of the 1980s.
The din and bustle then resembled the present day weekend market in Chattuchak. This
place is called the Lan Asok, which used to be a space for talk and discussion of
Buddhist matters by commoners in Bangkok.
According to Phon Rattanasuan, one of the early monk disciples of
Buddhadasa, who was then a popular lay lecturer at Mahachulalongkon Buddhist
University and Buddhist Sunday School of Wat Mahathat, people used to visit the
temple hall to listen to preaching and practise meditation, but not Lan Asok before
1956181. In December 1956, Phon started his lectures on the dhamma for schoolchildren
on Sunday and during school holidays at a building, which was later renovated as the
Phanaek Thamma Wichai (dhamma research division), it faces on to the Lan Asok.

181 Chiwit lae phon ngan khong achan phon rattanasuan (Life and works of Achan Phon
Rattanasuan) (Bangkok: Rongphim winyan, 1993), p. 14.

119
After a while, Phon’s lectures became so popular that the classroom became unable to
accommodate his audience, including adults as well as children. For listeners outside
the building, Pun Chongprasoet, who was a regular attendant of Phon’s lecture, donated
1QO

stone benches and loudspeakers “. Also around 1958, some political orators who were
driven out of the Sanam Luang, which is located just across the road from Wat Mahathat,
moved to the Lan Asok by changing their topic from politics to the dhamma183.
Furthermore, Abhidhamma study was expanding, especially after two Burmese monks
were invited from Burma to stay in Wat Mahathat and Wat Rakhang in 1952184, and
after a school that taught the Abhidhamma opened at Wat Mahathat in 1959185. In the
late 1950s, when people started to gather, traders started selling food in the temple
courtyard, and the Lan Asok became a place like talat nat, or a market that opens
regularly on weekend186.
In the Lan Asok, there were various dhamma preachers who represented
different schools of Buddhist thought giving speeches, answering questions from people,
discussing and talking. Perhaps the most popular teachers at the Lan Asok during that
time were Sawai Kaewsom, a socialist and lay disciple of Buddhadasa, Naep
Mahaniranon, a female lay teacher of Abhidhamma, and Sathian Phothinantha, a
scholar of Mahayana Buddhism. Also, there were lectures in the Phanaek Thamma
Wichai building by Phon Rattanasuan, an early disciple of Buddhadasa, but who later
developed his own idea of the supernatural existence of vihnäna (Thai: winyan)
independently from Buddhadasa’s influence. In the Phanaek Thamma Wichai, there
were also lectures by Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, who was a very popular monk preacher of
Abhidhamma, also a promoter of anti-communism, and a harsh opponent of
Buddhadasa. Among their audience, there were future famous teachers of Buddhism,
such as the present day Samana Phothirak at the Santi Asoke, Suchat Kosonkitiwong at
the Samnak Pu Sawan, Kovit Khemanantha and Phra Phayom Kalayano, famous

182 Chiwit laephon ngan khong achan phon rattanasuan, pp. 13 - 14.
183 Sawai Kaewsom, interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
184 Phra Phimolatham, “Anuson khun phra thipparinya” (Commemoration for Phra Thipparinya),
Anuson ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop: phra thipparinya (thup klamphasut) (Commemoration
o f Phra Thipparinya’s cremation) (21 May 1977), pp. 13 - 14.
183 Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, interview, Chonburi, 29 April 1999.
186 Chiwit lae phon ngan khong achan phon rattanasuan, p. 14.
120
disciples of Buddhadasa187. The audience included many more monks and lay people
without big names, and they discussed with, and put questions to, those teachers. The
Lan Asok truly functioned as a stage for town commoners to exchange their opinions
about the dhamma, a place of the Buddhist public sphere in Thailand in the late
twentieth century.
For the study of dhamma propagation activities that belonged to Buddhadasa’s
school, one of the most important persons at the Lan Asok was Sawai Kaewsom (1928
- )18S. Sawai was from Phatthalung Province in the South, he graduated from Wat
Benchamabophit High School and the Navy School for non-commissioned officer, and
started his work as a chief petty officer of the navy in 1951. If compared with the high
education and elite job career of Pun Chongprasoet, Sawai belonged to a more ordinary
commoner’s class, amongst whom he had a relatively high education for his generation.
Sawai’s intellectual concern started with political ideology, especially Marxism.
Through his experience as a soldier sent to the Korean War in 1952-53, Sawai thought
that the war was promoted by the Americans who wanted to sell their weapons left over
after World War II. Because of this concern, Sawai studied Marxism and political
ideologies by reading the books of Thai Marxists, such as Supha Sirimanon, Kulap
Saipradit and Samak Burawat. Although as a navy officer Sawai was not allowed to
take part in any political movement, such as the Peace Committee, he believed that he
had a right to express his opinions. Sawai often spoke of politics among his navy
colleagues, and went to the Sanam Luang for political oration to promote socialism.
Finally, he was investigated as a communist suspect by his commander and
recommended to resign from the navy, be ordained and stay out of politics. After three
months of ordination without much concern with Buddhism, Sawai started to work for
an oil company, and continued his public speech at Sanam Luang.
Some time after the take-over by Sarit Thanarat’s anti-communist military
dictatorship in October 1958, political assemblies and speeches were banned, and Sawai

187 Sawai Kaewsom, interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999, 22 August 2000; Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu,
interview, Chonburi, 29 April 1999; Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko, interview, Nonthaburi, 30 April
1999; Wannasit Waithayasewi, interview, Bangkok, 3 May 1999; Samana Phothirak, interview,
Nakhon Phathom, 6 May 1999.
188 The following story about Sawai is based on interviews with him on 21 March 1999 and 22
August 2000.
121
started going to the Lan Asok in Wat Mahathat. Since the abbot prohibited political
speech in the premise of the temple, Sawai changed his topic of speech from politics to
Buddhism. In Wat Mahathat, Sawai found a book of Buddhadasa, Phasa-khon -
Phasa-tham (Human language and dhamma language), which was distributed by Wirot
Siriat. Through Buddhadasa’s teaching, Sawai found out that conventional Buddhism in
Thailand was intermingled with Brahmanism, which made Thai Buddhism
“superstitious”. Sawai read books of Buddhadasa, and applied his ideas to his speech as
about and discussion of Buddhism in the Lan Asok.
In addition to Buddhadasa’s ideas, Sawai studied and applied the Abhidhamma
theory in his explanations of the dhamma. Although there were several Abhidhamma
teachers in Wat Mahathat, including Phra Satthamma Chotika Thammachariya and Phra
Techin Thammachariya from Burma, Sawai did not have any lessons from these monk
teachers. There was even a person who offered to pay for Sawai’s tuition in the
Abhidhamma, but Sawai did not like to memorise the details of the Abhidhamma theory
that would made him ‘crazy’ (ba). Instead, Sawai listened to and discussed with those
who had studied Abhidhamma in order to explain his idea of lokuttara-dhamma better.
Although he applied the Abhidhamma, to which many teachers who opposed
Buddhadasa belonged, both the basic ideas and associates of Sawai’s dhamma
propagation came from Buddhadasa’s school of thought.
There are at least two important characteristics in Sawai’s ideas of true
Buddhism based on Buddhadasa’s thought. One is his denial of the idea of vinnäna as a
soul that wanders and enters into another life after the death of an individual. Sawai
understands that vinnäna is a consciousness that arises when a human being came to be,
and disappears when the person dies. The other idea is his promotion of the idea of
reaching the level of the ariya puggala, who were in the flow to achieve complete
nibbäna. Sawai explained that nibbäna means extinction of upadäna (clinging to existence).
He also explains what upadäna is, and how to extinguish it in order to achieve nibbäna,

sometimes with the assistance of the Abhidhamma theory. These basic ideas were
commonly agreed to with Buddhadasa’s other lay disciples, such as Pun Chongprasoet
and Wirot Siriat. They often co-operated to propagate the dhamma through public
discussion sessions at various temple premises, and public lectures for teachers at
schools. However, among the other disciples of Buddhadasa, Sawai and Pun took an
122
extreme position in their understanding of Buddhadasa’s ideas.
Every Saturday, Sunday and public holiday, Sawai came to discuss the
dhamma in the Lan Asok, and he became a very influential teacher there. Even though
he did not have any degrees, he could explain the dhamma better than many other
people who came to talk with him. Sawai said that to learn the nature and life is neither
to study textbooks nor to enrol for a doctoral degree. Many monks, perhaps including
those who were studying at Mahachulalongkom Buddhist University, felt ashamed
listening to the speech of Sawai since they had plans that they might disrobe in the
future, most likely after completing their degrees. Kovit Khemanantha, who used to
study at Sinlapakom University, and who was to become one of the most famous
disciples of Buddhadasa, confessed to Sawai that he decided to be ordained as a monk
because of listening to the speeches of Sawai. A friend of Sawai said that many people
could understand Buddhadasa’s teaching by listening to Sawai, although they did not
understand it by reading Buddhadasa’s books ° . Sawai’s speech was supported by his
audience in the Lan Asok, who bought him a loudspeaker and other means.
Sawai’s speech in the Lan Asok was so popular, and the monk students at
Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University, which is located beside the Lan Asok, did not
listen to the lectures in the classroom, but preferred to attend Sawai’s talk. Thus, the
then University’s vice-chancellor pressured the abbot of Wat Mahathat not to allow
Sawai to give his speeches in the Lan Asok. On 14 October 1973, the day of the student
uprising that overthrew the military dictatorship, Sawai was prohibited from giving his
speech at the Lan Asok in Wat Mahathat, and moved to a place beside the main
auditorium of Thammasat University, which is located next to Wat Mahathat190.
Between 14 October and 6 October 1976, Sawai’s public speeches and
discussions involved not only Buddhism, but sometimes politics. This time, according
to Sawai himself, a student of Marxism before 1958, he took the position of a Buddhist,
and argued that his enemy was kilesa , not any kind of person. After the 14 October
uprising, Sawai was often criticised as patikiriya, or a reactionist, by leftist students at
Thammasat, a centre of radical student activism. However, one of his political speech

189 A man who came to talk when I was interviewing Sawai at Thamma Sathan, a place of today’s
dhamma talk behind the main library of Chulalongkom University, on 21 March 1999.
190 Sawai Kaewsom, interview, 21 March 1999.
123
during this time, “Khrai? khu phu-ko-kanrai”191 (Who is a terrorist?) presented a
radical view that opposed American imperialism and the rightist Thais’ labelling of any
disagreeable persons as “a communist”. Sawai defined what kinds of things a terrorist
does, and concluded that those who had the characteristics of “a terrorist” were not
those who were called “a communist”, but in fact American imperialism. In his
argument, Sawai supported the ideology of communism of the Communist Party
although he did not have any position in the Communist Party of Thailand. Sawai was
labelled as £a leftist’ by most ordinary pious Buddhists, but his Buddhist perspectives
were considered as “rightist” by radical students. This was the position of progressive
Buddhists who were concerned with social issues in the 1970s.
Sawai’s discussions on Marxism and Buddhism continued into the 1980s,
especially when he was introduced to Prasoet Sapsunthon by his friends. Prasoet was an
old friend of Buddhadasa, and was once a member of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Thailand, but after 1959 he became an advisor of the military to
teach the strategies of communists in order to apply them for counter insurgency192.
Sawai said that both Prasoet and Sawai agreed that even the highest teaching of
Marxism does not reach the highest teaching of the Buddha; by becoming a Buddhist, [a
Marxist] can reach the summit. They understood that Marxism only teaches an aspect of
materiality, and considers that people will be happy and good persons if their material
environment, such as food and possessions, becomes better. However, those who are
affluent with plenty of food, shelter, and cloth, are not necessarily happy and morally
good, because they also have avijjä (ignorance) and kilesa (defilements). Corresponding
to the claims in the works of Buddhadasa and Pun Chongprasoet, Sawai also argued that
we do not need materials more than are sufficient to cover basic needs, but the pure
mind that has overcome defilements can save the world. Sawai and Prasoet further
agreed that communism cannot survive without incorporating Buddhism; and in fact,
communism without Buddhism was in vain193.

191 Sawai Kaewsom, “Krai? khu phu-ko-kanrai”, Kaptan Samut (pseudonym of Samak Burawat),
Phutthit phachoen na kap kommiunit (Buddhism in the face of communism) (Klum yaowachon
itsara, 1974), pp. 81 - 94. According to Sawai, this book was published by a group of students at
Thammasat University (Sawai, interview, 22 August 2000).
192 About Prasoet Sapsunthon, see Chapter V, pp. 224 - 230.
193 Sawai, interview, 21 March 1999.
124
 This discussion of Sawai and Prasoet suggests how Thai intellectuals or achan
(teachers) in town commoners’ discussion circles elaborated their understandings in
conflicting, but equally suggestive ideologies. Questions about and interest in Marxism
were not simply the domain of radical students and those related to the Communist
Party. Questions about Buddhism were not exclusively the domain of monks and pious
regular temple visitors. The discussions and experiences of political and Buddhist
ideologies in their circle were very significant events in the public sphere of Thailand in
the late twentieth century.
Sawai stopped going to Thammasat University to give public speeches and
take part in discussions after the 6 October 1976, when the military returned to
government with the massacre at Thammasat, and restrictions on political speech and
activity were made by reactionary governments. After that, Sawai was invited to teach
for the projects of the Foundation for Sublime Life Mission and by others, and he also
visited schools and colleges to give him an opportunity to teach lokuttara dhamma. The
public discussions in the Lan Asok continued even after Sawai left in 1973, but Achan
Naep Mahaniranon, the other popular teacher in the Lan Asok, stopped going there in
1979 for reasons of ill-health. Perhaps, the function of the Lan Asok as a public space of
Buddhist discussions by town commoners had to move to other places with other
teachers and followers. Now, the activities of the Foundation for Sublime Life Mission
were expanding and becoming significant, particularly as the dhamma propagation of
Buddhadasa’s group, over the last two or three decades.

The activities of the Sublime Life Mission

The Sublime Life Mission, or the Mulanithi phoei phae chiwit prasoet
(abbreviation in Thai, Pho. Cho. Po.), is one of the most developed dhamma
propagation groups of Buddhadasa outside Suan Mokkh. Compared with the
Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism, which had in fact only one member, the
Sublime Life Mission established a plurality of members for its management committee,
and conducts a wider range of activities. The Sublime Life Mission actually followed
and co-operated with the activities of Pun in the beginning, took over some works of
Pun after his death in 1980, and expanded dhamma propagation activities with other lay
disciples of Buddhadasa, such as Sawai and Somsong Punyarit.
125
 The Sublime Life Mission was founded by Wirot Siriat (1921 - ) 194. Wirot also

had sound educational and work experience before he started his dhamma propagation

activities. He graduated from Thammasat University in 1946, and started working for a

legal office as a lawyer in 1947. However, he could not find a meaning in his life that

was nothing but eating, working, wandering, being intoxicated with sensual pleasures,

and sleeping every day. Wirot felt that it would be better to die if he had to endure

sufferings in his life solely in order to live eating and sleeping. Wirot developed a

mental disorder, and looked for an answer to questions such as: why were we bom, for

what purpose were we bom, and why do we have life today? People told Wirot that he

made a problem out of a non-problem, and called him crazy. However, Wirot did not

look for his answers in a religious teaching, because he thought that life is possible

without relating it to a religion, and any relation with a religion would give him

unnecessary burdens and expenses195.

At the end of 1958 Wirot came across a book by Pun C'hongprasoet, Khu mu

manut, or A handbook for humankind. Wirot wrote that he would not have read it if he

had known the book was a religious teaching, but he read it because he was interested in

the life of human beings196. This was the book that eventually answered his questions.
How did Khu mu manut answer Wirot? If we read the book with his questions

in mind, the following passages are illuminating.

Buddhism indicates that [desires] ‘to get something’ and ‘to become something’ are
only transient things of this world, and exist by the power of ignorance (avijjä),
because when we speak of the truth at the absolute and highest level, [we] cannot
become anything. For what reasons? It is because both a person who gets something
and the thing that is got are impermanent, suffering, and not belonging to anybody.
... Desire arises because the person does not know that nothing is worth wanting. It
is also because wrong assumptions have become attached to us as instincts from the
time when we were in the womb. From the time of being a child, we feel that we
want, and know that we will behave in accordance with the desire. Then, some kind
of effect arises; the effect sometimes corresponds with the desire, sometimes does
not. If the effect corresponded with the desire, we want it more. If the effect did not
correspond with the desire, we continue to struggle in other ways until we can get a
desirable result. When we do something, it generates some kind of effect again, and
circulates the cycle of defilement. Such a cycle of an act and its effect ([in Pali]
kam m a and vipaka) is called vatta samsära ... We have to bear suffering in this very
cycle. If we are able to exit from this cycle, it is the overcoming of suffering for
sure. Regardless of being a poor beggar, a millionaire, a king, an emperor, a
brahman, or whatever, all the beings who are in this cycle have to have some kind

194 The following story about Wirot’s life is based on an interview on 12 March 1999, and his article,
“Tai di kwa yu?”, in a booklet, Tai di kwa yu ru (Is it better to die rather than to live?) (Samutprakan:
Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1964).
19:3 Wirot Siriat, “Tai di kwa yu?”, pp. 3-4.
196 Wirot Siriat, “Tai di kwa yu?”, p. 4.
126
 of suffering, which is suitable to the person’s desire. Therefore, we can say that this
vatta sawsära is filled with huge sufferings. SUa dhamma [morality] and cariya dhamma
[proper conduct] are incapable of solving this problem. Thus, we have to rely on
true Buddhism, which is a higher-level principle of the dhamma that can be applied
to this problem in particular. We can see that suffering is derived from desire, the
Buddha placed desire as the second item of the four noble truths as the cause of
suffering797.

In other words, Pun’s summary of Buddhadasa’s preaching indicated that to

satisfy human desires, such as eating, sleeping, and seeking sensual comfort, does not
ultimately make a person happy. Rather, it is a part of the cycle of suffering in human
life. There is a different way to overcome suffering. The book indicated that this is in
fact the teaching of true Buddhism. The true Buddhism is even different from the
Buddhism that Thai people are familiar with, such as moral and proper conduct, which
ordinary monks teach at temples. What Wirot had to seek after was the true Buddhism
that he had never expected in conventional Buddhism, and he wrote as an answer to his
questions of life, “we were only bom in order to find non-suffering” . This surprise
that Wirot found in “true” Buddhism would in fact be the feeling that Thai people in
general found in Buddhadasa’s preaching.
After Wirot had inquired into Buddhadasa’s works that had been published by
the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism, and met Pun, he was motivated to
propagate the Buddhism that people had not been exposed to. At first, Wirot started
propagating the dhamma, especially the preaching of Buddhadasa, who taught the way
of overcoming suffering, by offering to co-operate with Pun’s activities, such as
publishing books, showing slides and organising lectures at various temples .
Around 1967, Wirot established his own group with his friends, “Khana phoei
phrae witthikan damnoen chiwit an prasoet” (The group that propagates the way of
sublime life), which was so named on advice from Buddhadasa, and abbreviated as the
Khana Pho. Cho. Po (The group of the Sublime Life Mission). Perhaps the first and
most important work in the beginning of the group of the Sublime Life Mission was the
publication of the series of Buddhadasa’s sermons in booklet form, Ekkasan chut mong
dan nai (The series of documents looking inside). The name of the series was taken
from the phrase “kan-mong sing thang puang nai dan nai”, which Wirot liked in

197 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Khu mu manut, pp. 35 - 38. The passage in bold here is in larger font in
Pun’s original text.
198 Wirot Siriat, “Tai di kwa yu”, p. 5.
199 Wirot, interview, 12 March 1999.
127
 rrmifm
niimmi
•ua^
nmsYns’fnmi
1 i

Figure 3. An issue of Ekkasan chut mong dan nai (The series of documents
looking inside) of the Sublime Life Mission.
The Attached poem says: “Know yourself. This phrase means that you can seek and find a jewel
inside yourself. Why do you look for it outside yourself? It is a waste of time. A lotus is in our self.
Don’t be a fool. In the lotus, there is the finest gem for a human being to seek and find.
Enlightenment or knowledge of any kind of thing, all comes from the knowledge of yourself’.
Buddhadasa’s preaching to the Buddhist club students at Chulalongkom University,
Thamma khu chiwit (The dhamma, a companion of life). Wirot installed a picture,
“Chong ruchak tua eng” (Know yourself!)200, at the Spiritual amusement theatre in Suan
Mokkh. In the picture, a person is jumping into a lotus flower inside the self. Wirot
realised that looking inside is nothing but vipassanä meditation201. The group of the
Sublime Life Mission published the series’ first issue, Phasa-khon - Phasa-tham
(Human language and Dhamma language) around 1967202, and altogether one million
copies of the sixty-six stories of Buddhadasa in this series have appeared both for sale
and for free distribution.
Dhamma book propagation by the Sublime Life Mission took over the method
of Pun’s Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism. According to a report in the first
print of the second issue of the series, Ekkasan chut mong dan nai, 10,000 volumes of
Phasa-khon - phasa-tham, the first issue of the series, was published by public donation.
The Sublime Life Mission spent 6,000 baht for printing, and 750 baht for shipping.
Among the 10,000 copies, the Sublime Life Mission donated 5,000 to Suan Mokkh for
distribution to visitors, to monks in general, and to libraries. The Sublime Life Mission
also encouraged people to buy their publications to distribute on occasions such as
ordination ceremonies, cremations, festivals, celebrations for house building, katin, and
for donations to libraries203.
The dhamma book distributions of the group of the Sublime Life Mission were
further supported by the opening of its bookshop, Thammabucha, in 1969. This was
when the illness of Sa’at Watcharaphai, the owner of the Suwichan Bookshop, became
serious, and the group of the Sublime Life Mission took over the role of a bookshop that
specifically dealt with low price publications on Buddhism as explained by the group of

200 There is a poem attached to the picture. See figure 3 and its caption.
201 Wirot, interview, 12 March 1999.
20" The first print of the second volume, Ekkasan chut mong dan nai andap 2: ruang phai khong
phutthasasana khong phutthathat phikkhu (The series of documents looking inside No. 2: Danger to
Buddhism by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), does not give the year of its publication. However, it should be
sometime after late 1966, because Buddhadasa’s sermon was given on 23 January 1966. This book
was printed in 100,000 copies. For another example, the second print of the seventh volume, Tham
bun sam baep (Three kinds of merit making), was printed in 500,000 copies in 1968. These
examples of the early printings indicate that the Sublime Life Mission vigorously published many
copies of Buddhadasa within a very short period.
20j Khana phoei phrae Phuttha-tham (The dhamma propagation group), “Krap rian than phu
borichak” (A report for the donors), Phai khong phutthasasana .
129
Buddhadasa. Through the dhamma book distributions of the group of the Sublime Life
Mission, the influential dhamma orator, Sawai Kaewsom, first read a work by
Buddhadasa, Phasa-khon - phasa-tham. In addition, a number of student activists also
investigated Buddhadasa’s Buddhist thought. For instance, Pracha Hutanuwat read
Buddhadasa’s book, Chit wang (Empty mind), which was summarised by Pun
Chongprasoet, for the first time, and bought copies of each of the books of Buddhadasa
at the Thammabucha bookshop204. Another former student activist, Weng Tochirakan,
helped Wirot to transcribe a sermon of Buddhadasa in order to publish it as a book205.
These examples suggest that the dhamma propagation activities of the group of the
Sublime Life Mission certainly brought the teachings of Buddhadasa and Buddhism to
those who were less familiar with temple activities, such as keeping the eight precepts,
meditation, and listening to monks’ sermons.
The group of the Sublime Life Mission incorporated people who were
interested in and ready to devote themselves to work for dhamma propagation even in
the provinces. They established the Centre for the Mission of the Way of Sublime Life
(Sun phoei phrae witthikan damnoen chiwit an pen prasoet) in 1975. Also in 1975, they
decided to legally register a foundation in order to make their organisation permanent,
and make it easier to co-operate with government and other organisations. They were
allowed to register as the Foundation for the Sublime Life Mission (Mulanithi phoei
phrae chiwit prasoet) by the Department of Religious Affairs and the Bangkok
Metropolitan Office206.
After 1975 through to the early 1980s, the Sublime Life Mission had two major
activities: a training programme for monks and novices to become preachers, and a
preaching project for schoolteachers who taught sila dhamma (morality). For the former
programme, the Sublime Life Mission established the Suan Idappaccayataram (The
garden of conditional arising) in Saraburi Province207. For the latter, the Sublime Life

204 Pracha Hutanuwat, interview, Bangkok, 1 May 1999. About Pracha’s student activism and works
as an engaged Buddhist, see Chapter VI.
2(b Weng Tochirakan, interview, Bangkok, 31 August 1999. About Weng’s experience as a student
activist, see Chapter VI.
206 “Thaiaengkan mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet” (An announcement of the Foundation for
the Sublime Life Mission), Thalaengkan trasan mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet (pho. cho. po.)
chabap pho. so. 2522 (An announcement document of the Foundation for the Sublime Life Mission,
1979 edition), pp. 4 - 5 .
207 “Thalaengkan mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet”, p. 5.
130
Mission worked most extensively in co-operation with the Ministry of Education208,
where, in the late 1970s, Buddhadasa’s lay disciples had responsible positions.
In the late 1970s209, the Ministry of Education examined reform of the
curriculum of school education, especially in Buddhism. According to Somsong
Punyarit, a teacher at Samsen Witthayalai School and the head of the reform committee
for the subject of morality, there was an uncertainty during that time whether the
Buddha actually existed or not, and the Ministry had to make students have faith in the
Buddha210. Somsong said that the generation of students after the 14 October uprising
received influence from the leftist ideologies that downgraded religion. Perhaps the
governments after the 6 October reactionary coup intended to restore young people’s
faith in Buddhism, one of the three nationalist symbols considered as the national values
opposed to communist ideologies. Contrary to Buddhadasa’s anti-establishment image
and suspicions of him being a communist, Buddhadasa’s lay disciples were trusted and
appointed to the role of reinforcing faith and practice in Buddhism under reactionary
governments.
The then director of the Department of Research and Information, Ekkawit na
Thalang, had been ordained as a monk at Suan Mokkh for a rains retreat after
completing his doctoral degree in the United States. Ekkawit himself had faith in
Buddhadasa, and also had encouragement from his father, Phraya Amonritthamrong,
who had supported Buddhadasa’s propagation tour in the South as an official of the
Ministry of Interior“ . For the purpose of reform in the curriculum, Ekkawit said that
pupils should learn dhamma that they can practise in their everyday life instead of

208 “Thalaengkan mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet”, pp. 5 - 12.

209 Ekkawit said that in 1975 the curriculum reform started, in 1977 it became a plan for education,
in 1978 the reform was done, and in 1979 the new curriculum started to be carried out (Ekkawit na
Thalang, interview, Bangkok, 20 March 1999). While, Somsong Punyarit said that the Minister of
Education, Pinyo Sathon, in the cabinet of Thanin Kraiwichian (22 October 1976 - 19 October
1977) started considering the reform of the curriculum of Buddhism (Somsong Punyarit, interview,
Bangkok, 22 March 1999). The information from these two persons does not agree on the starting
year of the reform consideration. However, both said that there was a group of people in the Ministry
of Education, who thought that the existing curriculum of Buddhism, which forced pupils to
memorise items, should be replaced with the one that could actually be practised.
210 Somsong Punyarit, interview.
211 Ekkawit na Thalang, interview. About Phraya Amonritthamrong, see 100 p i anuson
amonritthamrong (Centenary of Amonritthamrong) (Khana luk lan phim pen thi raluk nai ngan tham
bun chalong khrop rop 100 pi wan khlai wan koet phraya amonritthamrong (phrom na thalang), 28
February 1993) (The group of children and grandchildren publish for commemoration on the
occasion of the merit making ceremony of the approaching 100 years since his birth).
131
memorising detailed items, such as the four noble truths and the noble eight-fold path“212 .
Ekkawit wanted pupils to be able, for example, to return a lost article to its owner, by
studying the principle of honesty.
For the subject of sila dhamma, or morality, another lay disciple of Buddhadasa,
Somsong Punyarit, was appointed as the head of the curriculum reform committee by a
recommendation of the sub-director of the Academic Division, who used to be
Somsong’s boss at a school in Ubon. Somsong said that although she did not have a
very high position in the Ministry, she was chosen as the head because the Ministry
appreciated her achievement in her school in 1975. Among all the high schools in
Thailand, Somsong installed in her school the first hong phra (a room for the Buddha
image), where students voluntarily came to meditate every morning“ . As the head of
the committee, Somsong selected nine members for the committee, including Wirot
Siriat, Kovit Khemanantha, Nikhom Chetchaoenrak, and Arunwati Suwannakanit, who
were all disciples of Buddhadasa. In the previous curriculum, the fourth and fifth year
students in the secondary school had to memorise the history of the Buddha, the
ceremonies to make merit, such as for celebrating a birthday and building a new house,
and thirty-eight items in the Mahgala sutta. The old curriculum was replaced by the
committee with one to teach students to practise true Buddhism that teaches to destroy
defilements. In this reform, Somsong said that Buddhadasa’s teaching was absorbed in
her mind in order to apply it to the new curriculum214.
After the new curriculum was drafted, the Department of Formal Education
held a seminar in 1977 for the teachers of morality to know how to teach the subject in
accordance with the reformed plan. A hundred teachers attended the seminar, and a
number of them said that they did not know how to teach students to practise sila dhamma
in their daily life rather than just theory. The curriculum reform committee amended
their plan, but there were still many teachers who wanted guidance. The teachers’
council in many districts and provinces asked the Sublime Life Mission to organise a
training programme for sila dhamma teachers from 1978. In 1978-1979, the Sublime Life
Mission toured all over Thailand to give instructions in sila dhamma and Thai etiquette at

212 Ekkawit na Thalang, interview.

213 Somsong Punyarit, interview.
214 Somsong Punyarit, interview.
132
50 - 60 places for a total of 5,000 - 6,000 teachers. For this series of seminars for sila

dhamma teachers, the Sublime Life Mission invited both ordained and lay disciples of
Buddhadasa who were capable of giving preaching, such people as Phra Worasak
Worathammo, Phra Phayom Kalayano, Phra Maha Prathip Uttamapanyo, Phra Kovit
Khemanantha, Sawai Kaewsom, and Somsong Punyarit. In each seminar, 100 - 200
91c
teachers attended" .
For this series of seminars, the Sublime Life Mission had to support themselves
by their own funds. Each seminar cost 500 - 3,000 baht, including the cost of petrol,
food, accommodation, and printing, and they had to call for public donations in order to
continue this activity. They explained that the government also relied on their activities,
because other groups were unable to gain as much co-operation from monks and
novices to teach sila dhamma as the Sublime Life Mission. They suggested three kinds of
donations to their Foundation. A donor might, first, make a regular monthly donation, or
occasional donations; second, they might make savings in their own name (minimum
500 baht), and donate the interest to the Foundation; and third, they might contribute 30
baht per year by subscribing to the Foundation’s quarterly newsletter, Siang pluk (A
voice of encouragement) . However, the training programme for the sila dhamma

teachers only lasted until 1982.

In 1982 the reformed curriculum was changed again. In the new curriculum,
students once again had to memorise items of Buddhist theory. The 1982 curriculum
reform committee was headed by Professor Sumon Amonwiwat from Chulalongkom
University, and the committee members included Somsong, P. A. Payutto Bhikkhu,
Suchin Borihanwannnaket (a preacher on Abhidhamma), and Ravi Bhavilai (who
teaches science at Chulalongkom University, and is a student of both Abhidhamma and
Buddhadasa). At the first meeting, when Sumon submitted an idea to reform the style of
memorising on the advice of Suchip Punyanuphap, an influential teacher at Mahamakut
Buddhist University, Somsong opposed his plan. However, P. A. Payuttho, a highly
respected academic monk, disagreed with Somsong very politely. Somsong did not go
to the committee meeting afterwards, because she was caught up in an accident .

215 “Thalaengkon mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet”, pp. 6 - 9 .

216 “Thalaengkon mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet”, pp. 10 - 11.
217 Somsong Punyarit, interview.
133
Perhaps, this was the end of the influence of Buddhadasa’s group on the Ministry of
Education.
Wirot should have felt very disappointed with his work for site dhamma seminars.
He said that his activities during the first thirty years until the late 1980s did not meet
his expectations" . A friend of Sawai Kaewsom who attended my interview with Sawai
also said that the seminars of site dhamma could not evaluate any real effects or changes
in actual life" . Through this experience, Wirot sought a way to find a more visibly
effective promotion of the dhamma in each person’s life.
In 1990, Wirot became interested in “village bank”, a rural village development
activity of Chamnong Somprasong, by reading a newspaper column. The column,
Chalam khiaw, in the daily newspaper, Thai rat, on 11 September 1990 reported that
each rural village had a debt of 2,000,000 baht, and in sum farmers in Thailand owed
120,000,000,000 baht. The government proposed to resolve the debt, but Associate
Professor Chamnong Somprasong at Kasetsat University said that he did not totally
agree with the idea because it would not help farmers avoid debt in the future. In the
article, Chamnong proposed his idea of kong thun muban (village fund), a financial
institution of villagers. He recommended villagers save some money in a common
village fund, which is used for villagers as thanakhan muban or sahakon (a
co-operative). Chamnong had already tested it in four villages in North-eastern Thailand,
and had a good result, because villagers were able to absolve their high interest
payments and debts through the common fund. Chamnong further proposed that the
government should financially assist the village fund220.
Wirot became interested in Chamnong’s idea, and with fellow monks visited
the villages where Chamnong was testing his project. When Wirot visited the villages,
Chamnong said that the village bank could be sustainable with khunnatham (moral
principles). Because of this conversation, Wirot started to think of mutual support
between the propagation of the dhamma and the village bank project" . Wirot thought

218 Wirot Siriat, interview, 12 March 1999.

219 A friend of Sawai at Sawai’s interview, 21 March 1999.
220 Mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, “Thoi thalaeng” (Preface), Phairot Sisakunwong, Charoen
Sisaeng, and Chamnong Somprasong, Khu mu banchi thanakhan muban (A handbook for village
bank accounting) (Bangkok: Mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, 1994), pp. 4 - 5 . The newspaper
column in Thai Rat newspaper was cited in it.
221 Wirot Siriat, interview, 12 March 1999.
134
that the village bank could assist people by developing three aspects: the mind, society,
and economics. Wirot explained:
... when a villager made a debt, he/she has to learn thriftiness and patience. ... In
order to be thrifty and patient, the villager should control his/her mind to a certain
degree. The important moral principle of Buddhism is to control the mind, which
should not follow desire, and the self which drifts to the things that tempt the
person’s self. To follow the self is to follow defilement. There are lust, anger,
ignorance and so on, which are the cause for 4khwam-hen-kae-tua’ (egoism) to arise.
After all, we comprehend the core of the issue that, in order to resolve the debt of
villagers, we have to let them practise the dhamma, or in other words, let them
leave vice, do good, and make their minds pure (by leaving egoism). This is the
way to reduce^ egoism until we consider the benefit of the whole [society] above
that of the self222.

Although Buddhadasa did not commit to any activity of rural development or village
bank, Wirot said that the dhamma he applied to such activities was all derived from
Buddhadasa’s preaching223. Wirot moved from the ideal principles of Buddhadasa to the
actual betterment of socio-economic life. On this common basis, the Sublime Life
Mission started assisting the village bank project.
In terms of management, the village bank is a financial institution that is based
on the shares and deposits of the members of a village. It functions in a small-scale
village economy ranging from ten baht to several thousand baht. Just as banks in
general, the village bank also finances villagers and takes interests from those who have
a loan, and the interest is distributed to the members as interest on shares and deposits,
and also as life, health, and harvest insurance. Further income from the management of
the village bank is used as a common fund for village development, for supporting
religion, for children’s education, for the elderly and for handicapped people. In
particular, schoolteachers are supposed to give advice on the bank’s management,
accounting procedures, and the position of secretary, and monks are to teach thriftiness
and patience, and to indicate the four vices in apayamukha (drinking, gambling, visiting
prostitutes, and keeping bad company) and extravagant ceremonies which cause
villagers to become poor .
Not only the Sublime Life Mission, but many similar kinds of village banks or
co-operative activities, supported by various religious groups, have spread widely
throughout Thailand. For example, Phra Achan Subin Panito in Trat Province, learnt of

222
Mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, “Thoi thalaeng”, p. 5.
223
Wirot Siriat, interview, 12 March 1999.
224
Phairot, Charoen, and Chamnong, Khu mu banchi thanakhan mu ban, pp. 9 - 1 2 .
135
the idea of village co-operatives in the late 1980s, when he was doing dhutanga ascetic
practice in the South. He was in contact with villagers who had economic problems and
some local teachers who were testing the method of co-operatives225. Subin had once
stayed with Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh before he started his activities, and he said that
he was influenced by Buddhadasa’s preaching for the basis of his activities. Subin has
contact with the Sublime Life Mission and with other disciple monks of Buddhadasa,
however he comes from different origins and uses a slightly different method from the
village bank of the Sublime Life Mission.
Not only groups influenced by Buddhadasa, various other religious people also
struck upon this method as a way to work for society. A Catholic priest, Bunluan
Mansap, who is now a bishop, has had a “credit union” project, or a kind of
co-operative, at the Soon Klang Thewa (Centre of the angel) in an urban poor
community in Bangkok since the 1960s"“ . Based on his idea of religion’s utility for
society, Bunluan had contact with a famous development monk, Luang Pho Nan in
Surin Province, and also Sulak Sivaraksa, a lay co-ordinator for monks’ rural
development activities"" . Through the Sekhiyatham, the networking of development
monks by Sulak’s NGO, many monks attended an instructional seminar and then
applied the method of co-operatives in their village. Apart from the groups under
Catholic influence and that of Sulak, there are many other Buddhist groups which have
applied a variation of the village bank or co-operative method. Especially, the Buddhist
communities that the Santi Asok established in provinces have recently paid attention to
this. Samana Phothirak said that when many lay people came to live together with him
and the group, he needed a system of community - that was, what he named rabop
bunniyom (“meritism system”), in which co-operatives have a significant function"" .

225 Phra Subin Panito, interview, Trat, 21 August 1999.

226 Bishop Bunluan Mansap, interview, Ubon Ratchathani, 26 December 1999. The activities of the
‘credit union’ expanded all over Thailand, and the Thai government admitted it as a co-operative in
1979. In 1979, the members of the credit union were ninety-one. The Soon Klang Thewa is now the
centre of the Credit Union League of Thailand (Pethai Pathumchantarat et. al. at the Soon Klang
Thewa Credit Union Cooperative Limited, interview, Bangkok, 28 December 1999).
227 So. Siwarak (Sulak Sivaraksa), Chuang lang haeng chiwit (A later part of [my] life) (Bangkok:
Samnakphim Khlet Thai, 1997), pp. 222-223.
228 Samana Phothirak, interview, Nakhon Phathom, 6 May 1999. About the Buddhist community of
the Santi Asok group, see Sombat Chanthraong, Rai ’ngan kansuksa ruang chumchon pathom asok,
kansuksa phuttha yuthopia (A report on the Pathom Asok community, a study of a Buddhist utopia)
(Bangkok: the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, 1988).
136
 Although all these groups were not directly connected with the ideologies of
communism, socialism, and co-operatives, they would have been criticised as “idealism,
useless for social revolution” by the radicalised students, in the same way as
Buddhadasa’s groups of dhamma propagation were criticised. Buddhadasa’s preaching
taught the overcoming of suffering through a training of the mind, this was expanded to
a reform of economic life, guided by an insightful mind that can distinguish the causes
of suffering. This is a significant development from Buddhadasa’s work by his
disciples’ efforts at propagation, it is also significant for Buddhism in Thailand in the
last decades of the twentieth century.

“Branch” temples of Suan Mokkh and the Sublime Life Mission

The activities of the present Sublime Life Mission include correspondence with
and support for Buddhadasa’s disciple monks who have established their own temples
in provinces in order to spread and pass on the teaching in the different regions of
Thailand. After hearing the preaching of Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh for a while, some
of his disciple monks went back to their home villages or home provinces, and founded
their own temples as a “branch” of Suan Mokkh Chaiya. Although Buddhadasa said that
Suan Mokkh Chaiya does not have any such branches , perhaps like Luang Pho Cha
Suphattho’s Wat Nongpaphong, hundreds of which have expanded all over Thailand and
overseas230, some of Buddhadasa’s disciples call their temple “Suan Mokkh” in their
region. For instance, Phra Maha Khachit Siriwattho (1947 - ), who stayed in Suan
Mokkh Chaiya during 1970 - 1973, named his temple in Chiang Rai Province, Wat

229 Metta Phanit, interview.

230 The branches of Wat Nongpaphong, or of Luang Pho Cha, were nearly 200 by December 1998
(Khemachit Bhikkhu, the abbot of the Wat Pa Wiwek, which is the seventh branch of the Wat
Nongpaphong, interview, 15 December 1998). Its branches include some foreigner disciple monks of
Luang Pho Cha in Thailand, such as Wat Pa Nanachat (International forest temple) in Ubon
Ratchathani Province (the 19th branch), and the Japanese abbot, Phra Mitsuo Khawesako’s temple,
Wat Sananthawanaram in Kanchanaburi Province (the 117th branch). The overseas branches of Wat
Nongpaphong (up to 1989) included four temples in England, one in Australia, one in New Zealand,
one in Switzerland, and one in Italy built (Phra Mitsuo Khawesako, interview, Kanchanaburi, 25
December 1998; Khana luksit (A group of disciples), Rom ngao wat nongpaphong (Shadow of the
Wat Nongpaphong) (1989), pp. 71 - 77). For a study on Luang Pho Cha and his expanding branches,
see Khanungnit Chanthabut, Sathana lae botbat khong phra phutthasasana nai prathet thai (The
situation and the role of Buddhism in Thailand) (Bangkok: Klum prasan’ngan sasana phua
sangkhom, 1989), pp. 128-147.
137
Worakittanon Suan Mokkh Chiang Rai2jl. In the North-eastern region, there is Wat
Santiwanaram Suan Mokkh Lan Tham of Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani (1942 - ),
who stayed in Suan Mokkh Chaiya in 1967-1969232, and also Thamma Sathan Suan
Mokkh Isan Wat Khoksila of Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon (1960 - ), who spent a rains
retreat in Suan Mokkh Chaiya in 1986“ . These temples have some buildings and
structures that imitate the ones in Suan Mokkh Chaiya, such as the Bot Thammachat
(Hall of nature), Sa Narikae (Coconut tree pond), Lan Hin Khong (A gathering place
with the semi-circle of stones), in order to exemplify the dhamma that Buddhadasa
taught in Suan Mokkh2j4.
Unlike the branches of Wat Nongpaphong, which have a general meeting twice
a year" , the relationship of the Suan Mokkh “branches” with Suan Mokkh Chaiya is
9^ £

only a “spiritual connection”" . The abbots of the “branches” of Suan Mokkh interact
with each other personally or at Buddhadasa related gatherings, sometimes at Suan
Mokkh Chaiya, other times at activities of the Sublime Life Mission. The relationship
with the Sublime Life Mission is only personal and occasional, for example, when they
need to find a lay supporter who has faith in Buddhadasa and can afford to buy land237.
Otherwise, each “branch” has its own preaching programmes for lay groups most of the
time. Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani said that the branches and regional centres also
exist in the North and South, but the Northeast has the largest numbers of branch
temples. Suan Mokkh Lan Tham in Udon Thani Province takes on the role of the
North-eastern regional centre of the Sublime Life Mission. Every year for the past
eleven years at Suan Mokkh Lan Tham the abbot has preached to 20 - 50 monks and
novices in his temple for four months (three months for the dhamma practice, and a
month for scriptural study). In the temples, which are linked to the Sublime Life
Mission, the Sublime Life Mission’s project of the village bank is not compulsory, and

231 Phra Maha Khachit Siriwattho, interview, Chiang Rai, 16 March 1999.
999
“ Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview, Udon Thani, 24 December 1999.
233 Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon, interview, Sakon Nakhon, 24 December 1999.
234 Phra Maha Khachit, interview.
23:5 Khemachit Bhikkhu, interview.
236 Phra Maha Khachit, interview.
2j7 Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon, interview. The cost of the land of Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon’s
temple was covered by a lay follower who was introduced by Phra Sithawat, a committee member of
the Sublime Life Mission, with whom Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon became familiar at a meditation
retreat in Suan Mokkh Chaiya.
138
the propagation of the dhamma that Buddhadasa explained is most emphasised2-58.
The extensions of Suan Mokkh and the Sublime Life Mission into the
provinces indicate that Buddhadasa’s thoughts on Buddhism are accepted by people in
rural areas beyond the level of well-educated intellectuals who conduct their life and
activities in Bangkok. Those abbot monks in provincial ‘branches’ of Suan Mokkh are
not necessarily educated at a high level. All the above-mentioned three monks who
established regional Suan Mokkh centres are from well-to-to farmer’s families, and
have completed the third year of secondary school. After completing formal education,
Phra Maha Khachit was ordained as a novice in a temple in his hometown at the age of
fifteen, and completed ecclesiastical education up until the third level of the Pali
examination in Bangkok. In order to deepen his understanding in Buddhism, Phra Maha
Khachit studied with Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu in 1969 as a novice at his Djitthabhawan
College, which is a project for monks and novices to have wider education, and he
stayed with Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh as a monk for four years2-59. Both Phra Khru
Phisanthammaphani and Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon helped with their parents’ farming
until they were ordained at the age of twenty and twenty-two respectively. In the case of
Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, he was influenced by his ordained elder brother in
Nong Khai, who, even before his ordination, sent him books on the dhamma including
those of Buddhadasa240. Whereas, Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon first knew of Buddhadasa
when he met a teacher monk from his temple, who had been to Suan Mokkh241. Both of
them, though there is eighteen years’ difference in their ages, preferred Buddhadasa to
the forest monks in the Northeast, who belonged to Phra Achan Man Phurithatto. Phra
Khru Phisanthammaphani said that Buddhadasa explained the dhamma very deeply and
widely, whereas the teachings of Phra Achan Man and his disciples indicated only basic
principles and their meditation method, phuttho242. Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon thinks
that people respect those Thammayut forest monks as phu-wiset, or extraordinary,
magical persons, but they are not very much interested in their teachings. He prefers to
teach the dhamma that Buddhadasa clarified rather than rituals involving the

238 Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview.

239 Phra Maha Khachit, interview.
240 Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview.
241 Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon, interview.
242 Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview.
139
 943
supernatural“ . Their preaching of Buddhadasa’s non-supematural Buddhism has been
received with a certain respect by local people, for example villagers co-operated in the
building of the temple with free labour because of their faith244. Through the
propagation activities of these monks in the provinces, Buddhadasa’s teaching is
spreading among the populace with less educational background.

The Propagation Activities of Buddhadasa’s group in Laos

Buddhadasa’s influence has spread beyond the Mekong River in Laos. Phra
Phum Detchawongsa (1931 - )24i at Wat Pa Wimok in Vientiane considers that his
temple is a “branch” of Suan Mokkh in Laos. Phum explained that the Pali word in the
name of his temple, vimokkha, means deliverance or emancipation, and has the same
root of the word, mokkha, which is used in Suan Mokkh. In fact, Phum is not only one
of the most capable preachers in Vientiane, but also the sole propagator of Buddhadasa’s
school of Buddhism in Laos.
The career of Phum suggests that he is relatively well educated and used to be
in a socially respectable job in Laos. In 1954 after graduating from a French founded
high school in Savannakhet, his home province, Phum worked for the Treasurer for a
year, and moved to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Phum worked as a diplomat in
Thailand in 1960 - 64, and in the United Kingdom in 1971 - 75 before the revolution in
Laos. Phum continued his work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs even after the 1975
change of regime in Laos, until he was ordained as a monk in 1985, when he perhaps
reached the age of retirement from his job.
Phum’s interest in Buddhism started when he returned from his job in Thailand.
Through the preaching and vipassanä training of Phra Achan Maha Pan Anantho (? -
1968) at Wat Sokpaluang, which was in the neighbourhood of Phum’s house in
Vientiane. Pan had passed a Pali ecclesiastical examination in Thailand to qualify for
the title of “Maha”, and he also studied vipassanä meditation in the school of
Abhidhamma in Thailand. Pan had connections with leading progressive monks in

243 Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon, interview.

244 The Suan Mokkh Isan Lan Tham was built by free labour co-operation by surrounding villagers.
(Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview.)
24:5 The following stories on Phum’s life and activities are based on an interview with the author,
Vientiane, 28 March 2000.
140
Thailand, such as Phra Phimolatham (At Atsapho) and Panyanantha Bhikkhu, and
invited these monks and brought their books on Buddhism from Thailand. In 1965, Pan
invited Panyanantha to preach in Laos, and Phum first knew of Buddhadasa through the
sermons of Panyanantha. Moreover, a monk and a lay group of Wat Umong in Chiang
Mai came to Vientiane to do a katin ceremony around the same period before the
revolution in Laos, and Phum received books of Buddhadasa that they distributed for
the ceremony. Among those books, Phum found Khu mu manut, which was summarised
by Pun Chongprasoet, most impressive. After that, Phum pursued Buddhadasa’s
teaching by reading books, and he visited Buddhadasa in Suan Mokkh for the first time
in 1971 with Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, who used to be in Nong Khai, which is
just across the Mekong River from Vientiane. Since the death of Pan, his teacher, Phum
took over teaching vipassanä and explained Buddhadasa’s teachings at Wat Sokpaluang
every Sunday afternoon, when he had a holiday from his job at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
After his return from his job appointment in London in 1975, Phum continued
his preaching at Wat Sokpaluang, even after the change of regime in Laos, where the
communist party overthrew the royalist one. Phum said that everyone was scared to be
involved in religious activities under the communist regime, but he did not give up
teaching the dhamma that he learnt from Buddhadasa’s works. In fact, the communist
government did not prohibit Phum’s activities, although Phum agreed that the
government did not find much significance in people’s culture, including religious
beliefs and activities, for the first ten years after the revolution.
In 1985, after he was ordained as a monk, Phum was told to answer an
interview from a group of Japanese journalists who raised the question of religion under
the socialist regime. Since those Japanese journalists asked whether the vipassanä

meditation school existed in communist Laos or not, Phum, one of the most capable
vipassanä teacher in Vientiane, answered that there was vipassanä and Buddhist religion
existed in Laos. Phum explained to them that religion is the truth (Lao: man pen
khwam-ching, man pen satchatham), and everyone wants to know the truth whatever
the political regime is. Phum has kept teaching meditation before and after the change
of political regime, its aim is to control the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind,
which are the doors where suffering can arise.
141
 Many questions arise regarding the ideological and political positions of Phum
and Buddhadasa’s teaching which Phum propagated under the socialist regime of Laos.
Does the dhamma taught by Buddhadasa have a specially recognised position in
socialist Laos, as some people believe246? As well as other Thai monks, Buddhadasa’s
groups of monks are not allowed to preach in Laos, but the government does not
prohibit that Lao monks teach Buddhist thoughts that they have learnt from Thailand,
including the schools of Buddhadasa and Abhidhamma. There is also no need for
special permission to distribute Buddhadasa’s books in Thai in Laos, because any books
on Buddhism can be imported from Thailand to be distributed in Laos, although
newspapers and books that are concerned with politics and ideologies were prohibited.
Since printing books costs much more in Laos, and also Lao people have no problems
reading Thai script, Phum mostly brings Buddhadasa’s books in Thai from Thailand
rather than translating and publishing them in Lao, except for two: Tham bun 3 baep
(Three kinds of merit making) and Pawarana247. In fact, Panyanantha Bhikkhu, an
important fellow monk of Buddhadasa, came several times to preach in Laos under the
royalist regime in the late 1960s, including one invitation from the monarchy of Laos,
who contacted Panyanantha through the USIS, an anti-communist agency of the United
States in Thailand. At the time of his sermon, Panyanantha preached to the Lao people
to unite in order to save the nation. The content of his message can be compared with
that of nationalist right wing mass organisations in late 1970s Thailand“ . However,
Panyanantha was invited to Laos again in 1983 under the socialist regime, when Laos
held a peace conference of Asian Buddhists, in which Panyanantha was the
representative of Thailand 249 . These invitations of Panyanantha suggest that
Panyanantha, a famous monk preacher, was wanted by both camps, and he played a
predictable and anticipated role at both occasions.
What about Buddhadasa’s proposal of Dhammic Socialism (thammika

246 For example, Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani said that exceptionally books of Buddhadasa and
Panyanantha were allowed to be brought into Laos from Thailand even after the revolution. Phra
Achan Bunchan Tetchathammo at Wat Ong Tu, a historical temple in Vientiane, confirmed Phra
Khru Phisan’s information, and explained the reason being that their teaching of Buddhism indicated
the core of the dhamma (Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview; Phra Bunchan Tetchathammo,
interview, Vientiane, 27 March 2000).
247 Phum Detchawongsa Bhikkhu, interview.
248 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae Ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 385-386.
249 Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit lae Ngan khong than panyanantha, pp. 386-387.
142
sangkhomniyom)0! Has Dhammic Socialism ever been utilised in the propaganda of the
Lao socialist regime? According to Phum, the only capable preacher of Buddhadasa to
teach the dhamma in Laos, the answer is no. In the personal view of Phum, the
government allowed Buddhism to stay under their regime as a popular belief, but the
government officials “followed [the tenet of] Karl Marx”250 as their principle policy.
Although Phum was not prohibited to teach Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism, Phum
found it difficult for people to understand the message. Phum did not propose the
concept of Dhammic Socialism to the government officials because he considered that it
would become too political. Phum only liked this concept personally, and once intended
to name his temple “Wat Thammika Sangkhomniyom” (Temple of Dhammic Socialism)
sometimes in the early 1990s. Phum gained permission from Buddhadasa to use it as his
temple’s name, however, when he returned Vientiane, Laos had got rid of
“sangkhomniyom” (socialism) from the country’s official name and from government
propaganda"51 so Phum abandoned his plan to change his temple’s name.
What about Phum’s ideological position under the socialist regime? As a monk
who was ordained only at an advanced age, Phum does not have any administrative
appointment in the Organisation of the Fellowship of Buddhism in Laos (Lao: Ongkan
phutthasasana samphan haeng prathet lao), which is the equivalent to the Sangha in
Thailand. As a respected preacher to the people, Phum was once given opportunities to
teach the dhamma on state television and radio for a year sometime around 1998,
because he was expected to assume a role promoting Lao cultural values when the Lao
government began to recognise their significance alongside Marxist ideology. This
approximately coincided with the time of Phum’s ordination in 1985. However, Phum
quit this work because people, especially those who were in the government, did not
understand his sermons. Phum considered that his sermon based on Buddhadasa went
further than the ceremonial sermon that the government wanted. These episodes
indicate that Phum’s preaching has nothing to do with the government’s policy to have
Buddhist monks propagate socialist ideology to the Lao people.

250 Phum Detchawongsa, interview.

251 According to Phum, every government document used to have on it, “Ekkarat, santiphap,
prachathipatai, sangkhomniyom” (Independence, peace, democracy, and socialism), but they
recently say “Ekkarat, santiphap, prachathipatai, watthana thawon” (Independence, peace,
democracy, and permanent development) (Phum Detchawongsa, interview).
143
 Ideologically, Phum took up a distance from the American and Thai
consumerist cultures, Marxism, and the recent change in Lao life of liberalising
economic policy. Phum considers that the material is subordinate to the mental, and the
“science of mind” should be distinguished from the science of the material in which the
Americans lead the world. In the material, Phum explains that it is not possible to end
problems and sufferings, but in the mind, it is. Phum calls America “fully materialist”,
by which he means consumerist; Lao politics is also “materialist”, but Lao people are
different. Also, in comparison with Buddhism in Thailand, Phum believes that
supematuralism and its consumerism, such as the pendent of a small Buddha image, is
more prevalent in Thailand than in Laos. Phum does not admire Thai Buddhism even
though he received the teachings of Buddhadasa from Thailand. Recently Lao people
are becoming the same as Western people seeking economic development, and they
consider religion as outdated. Not only are the cultures in the American and Thai camp,
as well as the recent introduction of the market economy in Laos, but also socialism is
not the ideal for Phum. Although the socialist regime in Laos did not destroy or prohibit
Buddhist activities, religion, in which Phum sees most significance, is given a
secondary position to Marxist theory. Moreover, Phum says socialism is too radical,
even though it seeks peace in the end. Whereas, religion has mettä, or loving kindness,
which never destroys enemies. Buddhism does not make any struggle because when the
mind is strong enough, no struggle ever occurs.
We should understand that Phum’s defence of Buddhism under a socialist
regime was a defence of Buddhism rather than of a socialist regime, which is likely to
be labelled as antagonistic to religion, and in which Phum and Buddhism had to survive.
Such an ideological attitude of Phum is identical to that of Buddhadasa and his group of
Buddhists within Thailand belonging to the opposite ideological camp. They took a
critical stance to both capitalist consumerism and worldly socialism from a Buddhist
perspective, as Buddhadasa articulated in his Dhammic Socialism252.
The propagation of Buddhadasa’s school of Buddhism in Laos has been
conducted by Phum’s efforts from the royalist period through to the time of the change
in regime to the present. In the socialist Lao conditions where Thai monks are not

252 See Chapter VI.

144
allowed to preach, propagation of the dhamma by Buddhadasa’s group relies on Phum,
a Lao disciple of Buddhadasa. Every year during the rains retreat Phum teaches every
day at his temple to his disciples, including twenty-two monks, eight novices, and about
twenty mae chi, who altogether number around fifty. These numbers of his disciples are
rather large for a temple in Laos without a school of scriptural studies, and even in
comparison with most of other provincial Suan Mokkh branches in Thailand2^3. Apart
from preaching to his disciples who live in the temple, Phum gives a sermon for lay
people every Sunday afternoon. Phum is also invited every year to teach at temples in
other provinces in Northern and Southern Laos. At each temple, he organises a
seven-day retreat, and spends three to four months in summer on the training in the
provinces. Some who became interested in the dhamma that Phum expounds in the
provinces come to his temple in Vientiane to study with him for a longer period of time.
Phum said that although there are no other temples than his which can be considered as
a “branch” of Suan Mokkh in Laos, many young monks now respect Buddhadasa, so
Buddhadasa’s school is spreading in Laos.
The public sphere of Buddhism in Vientiane has not functioned as in Bangkok,
where Pun, Sawai, and Wirot frankly expressed their opinions and discussed them with
their audience. However, Phum’s preaching of the dhamma and teaching of vipassanä has

also been an expression of Buddhist people in socialist Laos, where most people kept
silence in the Buddhist public sphere for fear of being involved in religious activities.
Here, another of Buddhadasa’s disciples has had an important role.

In this chapter, I have examined how Buddhadasa’s teaching was propagated in

the Buddhist public sphere in contemporary Thailand and further beyond that into Laos.
Buddhadasa’s propagation activities expanded first through the journal, Phutthasasana,
which he wrote and published with his brother, Thammathat. The propagation of the
dhamma was further expanded by many groups linked to Buddhadasa, especially those

253 Every year there are about five monks and two female ascetics in Suan Mokkh Chiang Rai
during the rain retreat; and nine monks in Suan Mokkh Isan of Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon (Phra
Maha Khachit, interview; Phra Khru Kittiyansunthon, interview). Perhaps the case of Suan Mokkh
Isan Lan Tham is an exception. As a regional centre of the Sublime Life Mission in Northeast, the
temple has a project to train young monks and novices to become dhamma teachers. Phra Khru
Phisanthammaphani says that there are about twenty to fifty monks and novices who join this project
(Phra Khru Phisanthammaphani, interview).
145
of lay followers, who belong to different circles, such as elite Bangkok government
officials, people in northern Thailand, town commoner’s assemblies, and the socialist
regime in Laos. In order to communicate with the masses, both print media and oral
communications at each gathering place were important. Each group created a space of
discussion where people came to seek an understanding of Buddhism and to exchange
their learning with others.
Those devoted followers of Buddhadasa who became motivators of the
dhamma propagation were not wealthy enough to be able to donate greatly or to fund
the propagation activities. However, their high social status and high levels of education
facilitated their activities and meant they were trusted with donations for their works.
The well-to-do urban middle class origins of many of those propagators are remarkable,
though the anonymous people who participated the public sphere should not be
forgotten. The rich contribute their money which is essential for the work of
propagation, whereas less educated or people less capable of running public activities
could simply come to the gathering of preachers whom they respected as their achan
(teacher). It is more important to emphasise that in the places of the dhamma discussion,
no one was excluded, but everybody was invited to apply the dhamma to overcome
suffering in his or her life.
In the places of discussion, disagreement had to exist. This chapter, which
focused on expansion of Buddhadasa’s groups, did not deal much with the conflicts of
opinions that Buddhadasa and his followers experienced with other groups. The next
chapters will pursue the arguments in which Buddhadasa’s group was involved, and that
contributed vital discussions to the Buddhist public sphere.

146
Chapter III Empty mind: a controversial concept of Buddhadasa
thought discussed in the Buddhist public sphere

By the middle of the twentieth century, the doctrinal understanding of Thai

Buddhists had improved. In the late nineteenth century King Chulalongkom was
shocked at the standard of preaching by provincial monks. Thanks to the efforts of his
half-brother, Prince Patriarch Wachirayan Warort, basic doctrinal education spread
through the ecclesiastical examinations and textbooks. Also by the end of World War II,
academic monks pursued further study of the Pali scriptures, especially by translating
the sutta into Thai, and they published their translations in Buddhist journals, such as
Thammachaksu of the Mahamakut Buddhist Academy, and Phutthasasana of
Buddhadasa’s Khana Thammathan. When they sought different ways to go beyond the
standards and uniformity of modem ecclesiastical education, differentiation in doctrinal
understanding of Thai Buddhists occurred. In other words, diversity of ideas was
increasing in the Buddhist public sphere in the post-World War II period.
In the case of Buddhadasa, after synthesising the stories in the Pali scriptures
into such books as Tam roi phra arahan (Following the footprints of arahant) and
Phuttha prawat chak phra ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words), he pursued his
studies further in English journals and books. These introduced him to other traditions
of Buddhist thought, and helped to develop his ideas. One of the striking ideas that
Buddhadasa introduced into the Thai Buddhist public sphere was the concept of
emptiness (Pali: sunnatä) and empty mind (Thai: chit wang).
In Thailand, the concept of emptiness was unfamiliar until 1947 when
Buddhadasa translated The sutra of Wei Lang, a classical Chinese Zen text, into Thai
from the English translation by Wong Mou-lam1. Perhaps Buddhadasa became

1 Wong Mu Lam (Phutthathat Phikkhu trans.), “Sut khong wei lang”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 15 No. 2
(May 1947), pp. 96 - 123. The sutra of Wei Lang was first translated into English by Wong Mou-lam
in 1930 and published by the Yu Ching Press in Shanghai, and a new edition was published in 1944
by Christmas Humphreys in London (“Forward to new edition”, Luzac & Co., p. 5). In Thailand,
Buddhadasa’s Thai translation has been reprinted many times by “Thirathat” (Thira Wongphophra),
a Chinese Zen Buddhist living in Bangkok. It has been distributed free for propagation purposes by
Phutthasamakhom Pao Keng Teng When Buddhadasa translated the book into Thai, he
sought advice from Tan Mo Siang (föliÜ li), a Chinese Zen preacher in the Tae Chew dialect at
Samakhom Phutthaborisat Thai-Chin Pracha (the Thai-Chinese Buddhist Association;
Tan Mo Siang indicated some mistakes in the English translation from Chinese so that
147
interested in emptiness through this work, then found it also in the Theraväda scriptures,

and propagated the idea in his sermons. This seems to have happened in the 1960s when

Buddhadasa talked emphatically of emptiness, and it then became familiar to the ears of

Buddhists in Thailand“. In 1964 especially, the dispute-ridden panel discussion about

empty mind by Buddhadasa and M. R. W. Kukrit Pramoj (1911 - 1995) gave people a

lot to talk about in the Buddhist public sphere of Thailand*23, and it was even known by

the present king, King Bhumibol4. The concept of emptiness and empty mind became a

controversial issue about which Buddhadasa was criticised as being unorthodox.

In fact, emptiness has been a controversial concept even from the period of

early Buddhism. According to Lamotte, following Nägärjuna, the Srävakayäna (or

“Hinayäna”), in which the Theraväda was included, teaches the emptiness of beings

(.sattvasünyatä), or non-self, while the Buddhayäna (or Mahäyäna) teaches both emptiness of

beings and emptiness of things ( dharmasunyatä), which means the world is as empty as

the “s e lf’''. The Theraväda also had the concept of emptiness in its canon, but it was not

discussed in the traditional Theraväda commentaries as much as in Mahäyäna schools

which expanded on it. Because contemporary Thai Theraväda Buddhists were uncertain

whether this teaching was inherent in their form of Buddhism, emptiness also became
controversial when they came to know of it through Buddhadasa, and especially so

Buddhadasa could grasp the main ideas in the original language (Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, Lao
wai mua wai sonthaya: atchiwaprawat khong than phutthathat (Talking in the twilight years: an
autobiography of Venerable Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1988), pp. 501 -
502).
2 There is a collection of Buddhadasa’s sermons on emptiness, which include one given on Magha
Puja, 12 February 1960 (Phutthathat phikkhu, “Makhapunnamikatha”, Chumnum thamma banyai
ruang chit wang (Collection of dhamma lectures on empty mind) (Bangkok: Arun Witthaya, 1992)).
3 According to Panyanantha Bhikkhu, a co-worker of Buddhadasa’s dhamma propagation,
Buddhadasa said, “I used to think that it would take twenty years for people to understand sunnatä,
but nowadays it looks like not so long. This is because Kukrit helped very much. He helped to
criticise it and made people interested in it. People will be able to read and study in various
newspapers, which helps to stimulate them to study” (Panyanantha phikkhu, “Chiwit lae phonngan
khong than phutthathat” (Life and work of Ven. Buddhadasa) (originally spoken on 2 February
1986), Chiwit lae phonngan khong than phutthathat (Bangkok: Atammayo), p. 20).
4 Sanya Thammasak (Sanya Dhammasakdi), “Phutth-tham kap chiwit kan-ngan” (Buddha dhamma
and a life of work), Pun Chongprasoet (ed.), Arai thuk, arai phit (originally published by Ongkan
funfu phutthasasana, 1973; reprinted by Mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, 1982), p. 165.
According to Sanya, King Bhumibol used the word empty mind to him many times. When Sanya, a
member of the Privy Council, was worrying that he did not have a good idea about something the
king wished to consult over, King Bhumibol told him to have empty mind.
3 Etienne Lamotte, “Les dix-huit vacuites”, Le traite de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nägärjuna:
Mahäprajnäpäramitäsästra : avec une etude sur la vacuite, Volume IV (Louvain: Institut Orientaliste,
Universite de Louvain, 1974), pp. 1995 - 2013. I thank Dr. Royce Wiles for translating from and
discussing Lamotte’s philological study.
148
when he was attacked by his opponents.
In earlier studies by Gabaude and Jackson, Buddhadasa’s proposal of empty
mind was examined as one of his characteristic ideas. Gabaude indicated that emptiness
was one of Buddhadasa’s criteria to determine the authenticity of the scriptures and
Buddhist beliefs67, and Jackson implied that Buddhadasa’s promotion of empty mind
was a modem, Protestant kind of abolition of the monk-laity distinction in order to give
access to nibbäna . Both studies examined critiques of Buddhadasa’s teaching of empty
mind, which was claimed to be heretical, but they considered that the opponents’
arguments and positions were uncritically represented as conservative or theoretical. In
fact, Buddhadasa’s opponents used various tactics to manipulate public perceptions of
him, at the same time Buddhadasa’s untraditional teaching was controversial. The
discussions of both Buddhadasa and his opponents should be investigated equally in
order to evaluate his thought. Also, in both Gabaude’s and Jackson’s studies, which
mainly explored characteristics of Buddhadasa’s thought, the view of Buddhadasa’s
followers who perceived this teaching as beneficial, was almost untouched. Even
though modem, rational characteristics are found in Buddhadasa’s thought, it should not
be automatically assumed that his followers favoured Buddhadasa because of that.
Those followers’ opinions should also be examined as a part of the discussions in the
Buddhist public sphere.
In this chapter, by looking at discussions about empty mind that Buddhadasa
provoked in the late 1960s, I am going to explore what made his proposal controversial
for participants in the Thai Buddhist public sphere. In order to approach this question, I
am going to examine three things: first, basic points of Buddhadasa’s empty mind;
second, Buddhadasa’s panel discussions with Kukrit Pramoj, by which this concept
became widely known; and third, Arai thuk, arai phit, a book formatted like a debate
over the issue. In the conflict between the opinions of Buddhadasa’s group and his
opponents, each sought a way to take the advantage of the other in order to gain the

6 Louis Gabaude, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande: Buddhadasa

Bhikkhu (Paris: Ecole Fran^aise d’Extreme-Orient, 1988), pp. 119 - 121.
7 Peter Jackson, Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker for the modern world (Bangkok: The Siam Society
under Royal Patronage, 1988), especially “Cit-wang - ‘Freed mind’ and the abolition of the
monk-lay distinction”, pp. 157 - 184; “The practice of cit-wang”, pp. 185 - 206; “Cit-wang and
Zen”, pp. 207 - 232.
149
upper hand in the discussion. Through this process, Buddhadasa appeared to be
unorthodox not solely because of his introduction of the unfamiliar concept of
emptiness into Theraväda, but also because of his image as generated by discussions in
the Thai Buddhist public sphere.

1. Main features of empty mind in Buddhadasa’s thought

The concept of empty mind was one of the ideas that gave people the
impression that Buddhadasa was unorthodox from the viewpoint of the Theraväda school
of Buddhism. However, Buddhadasa often cited Pali phrases in the Tipitaka as
authorisation, and developed the idea in his own way. As far as I can trace
Buddhadasa’s thought on empty mind, there are at least five points that became topics
of discussion.
First, Buddhadasa explained that empty mind is a state of mind freed from
kilesa (defilements) and from upädäna (clinging) which sees things as tua ku (me, self) or
o
khong ku (mine, possessions of the self) . According to Buddhadasa,
Empty mind is not a mind that does not feel anything. What is called citta (mind)
has to have kwam-ru-suk (feeling), because it is the nature of the mind. If the mind
has a feeling of non-egoism, it is called ‘chit wang'. If the mind has a feeling of
strong egoism, it is called ‘chit wun' (unsettled mind)89.

Buddhadasa considered the state of mind that is free from attachment to a self and its
possessions as the heart of Buddhism. He referred to the words of the Buddha,
All kinds of dhamma {dhammajäti [nature])101 are anattä (non-self). No one should
attach to any kind of dhamman .

When there is no sense of attachment to a “self’, or to things as the possession of a self,

which in reality cannot be owned, suffering does not arise. Because the ultimate goal of

8 Phutthathat, Kan-tham-ngan dual chit wang phua sangkhom khong than phutthathat (Working
with the empty mind for the sake of society by Ven. Buddhadasa) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana), pp. 7 - 8 ; Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae khong than phutthathat
(Sunnatä, empty mind, and original mind by Ven. Buddhadasa) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana), p. 2.
Phutthathat, Kan-tham-ngan duai chit wang phua sangkhom, pp. 7 - 8 .
10 The bracketed phrase was given by either Buddhadasa or Pun Chongprasoet, the editor of the
book (Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, p. 17).
11 Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, p. 17. Buddhadasa often mentioned this phrase
in his sermons. In Pali, the latter half of the phrase seems to be Sabbe dhammä nälam abhinivesäya
(Ranchuan Inthrakamhaeng, Suan mok thammai? Thammai suan m ok? (Why Suan Mokkh? Suan
Mokkh, why?) (Bangkok: Attamayo, 1991), p. 32).
150
Buddhism is to overcome suffering, Buddhadasa made emptiness or empty mind as the
essence of Buddhism.
Second, Buddhadasa explained that the mind is originally pure and empty, free
from defilements. Although this argument of Buddhadasa sounds like Zen, he supported
his idea by a Pali phrase from the Tipitaka:
pabhassaram idam bhikkhave cittam ägantukehi upakilesehi upakilittham

which means
Bhikkhu[s], the mind is luminous. But, the mind becomes gloomy because
upakilesa (imperfections) come as visitors12.

Thus, Buddhadasa argued that the original mind {chit doem thae) does not have any
defilement so that it is always pure and it is luminous if we do not let defilements arise
by following the noble eightfold path (right view, right thinking, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration). He
explained,
The mud is not the jewel, but the luminosity is covered by the mud. If we take
away the mud, the jewel is luminous as it used to be. The mind is the same. Many
sorts of cetasika came to it and deprive it of its luminosity13.

According to Buddhadasa, defilements came to the original, pure mind in the

following way. When a baby is bom, it starts to have attachment. For example, when its
eyes see a sight object, ears hear a sound, nose smells an odour, etc., it becomes
interested in the sight object, sound, odour, taste, or body sensation, and either
satisfaction (Pali: sukha vedana) or dissatisfaction (Pali: dukkha vedana) arises. Then, some
kind of desire (Pali: tanha) arises, and then upädäna (clinging), or in other words, tua ku -
khong ku (me and mine), arises. Since a little child does not have knowledge of the
dhamma, kilesa easily arises because of its avijjä (ignorance). It soon starts to be attached

to sukha vedana, and that attachment produces suffering14.

However, Buddhadasa thought that tanhä or upädäna occupies the mind not for
too long, perhaps several hours or minutes a day. If the mind were dominated by the
sense of me and mine all the time, Buddhadasa said that the person would become crazy.
Any time when the mind is not interfered with by kilesa, the mind is at peace and able to

12 Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, p. 10. This is my English translation of
Buddhadasa’s Thai translation of the Pali phrase.
13 Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, pp. 11 - 12.
14 Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, pp. 14 - 15.
151
think with satipahnä (insight) and sad-sampajahna (full awareness)15.
For Buddhadasa, empty mind, which is originally pure and freed from
defilements and clingings, does not agree with the Abhidhamma theory of mind,
therefore these points of disagreement became targets of criticism for the Abhidhamma
groups16.
Third, Buddhadasa taught that empty mind is attainable and should be pursued
by everyone, including lay people living in secular society. Although the idea of empty
mind or emptiness belongs to the lokuttara dhamma, or the path of overcoming suffering,
which is often considered as a teaching for monks who aim at becoming arahant by
renouncing the mundane world, Buddhadasa found a scriptural foundation which could
support the practice of it by lay people. Buddhadasa often referred to a Pali phrase,
Ye te suttantä Tathägatabhäsitä gambhirä gambhiratthä lokuttarä sunnatapatisamyuttä,

17
which appears in the Dhammadinna Sutta . In the story, the Buddha recommended the
practice of emptiness when Dhammadinna sought advice that would benefit lay people.
The Buddha answered,
Then, Dhammadinna, thus must ye train yourselves: As to those discourses uttered
by the Tathägata, deep, deep in meaning, transcendental and concerned with the
Void, from time to time we will spend our days learning them. That is how you
must train yourselves, Dhammadinnals.

By this scriptural authorization, empty mind or emptiness is encouraged for ordinary lay
people who also have emptiness as the foundation of their mind, even though their mind
is not empty of defilements as that of an arahant, hence upädäna often interferes with their
mind.
Fourth, Buddhadasa taught lay people to “work with empty mind” (Tham ngan
dual chit wang) in the midst of secular society. According to Buddhadasa, when the
mind is empty of egoism ([Khwam-hen-kae-tua), without the sense of me and mine, we
only work in accordance with our duty. Also, when the mind is empty from clinging to
me and mine, the mind is filled with sadpahhä and sati sampajahna. Therefore, a person can
fulfill their duty most perfectly when they have an empty mind. For example,

15 Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, pp. 3 - 4 .

16 See chapter IV.
17 The Dhammadinna sutta is in Mahä-vagga, Samyutta-nikäya, Sutta-pitaka (M. Leon Feer (ed.),
Samyutta-nikäya Part V Mahä-vagga (London: Pali Text Society, 1960), pp. 406 - 408).
18 F. L. Woodward, The book o f the kindred sayings ( Samyutta-nikäya ) or grouped suttas: part V
(Mahä-vagga) (London: The Pali Text Society, 1965), p. 348.
152
Buddhadasa said that when the mind is empty of attachment to the sense of “me” and
“mine”, a farmer can plough the field enjoyably even in the middle of the blazing sun, a
hunter can shoot a target precisely, and a musician can play music in a most refined
way19. Buddhadasa promoted “work for the work’s sake”, “work with empty mind”,
being forgetful of the benefit to oneself, especially with regard to work for society or for
the nation. If there is egoism in the mind, the work will only be a means of unlawful
benefit, and will not be done accurately20. However, Buddhadasa taught that if a soldier
has a sense of responsibility for the nation without any intention to do unjust violence or
to kill people, the shooting of the soldier would not be a demerit, as it would be for
those who have a sense of me and mine. This is compared to taking a medicine to
excrete a parasitic worm. The person may know that the worm will be killed by the
medicine, but the primary intention is not to kill, but to cure the body21. These acts were
considered by Buddhadasa as working with empty mind.
Fifth, even though it was often criticised as Mahäyänistic or non-Theraväda,
Buddhadasa indicated that the idea of suhhatä or emptiness actually occurs in the Tipiptka.
Apart from the above mentioned Dhammadinna sutta, Buddhadasa referred to the
Mahäsuhhatä sutta and the Culäsuhhatä sutta in which the concept of emptiness is presented"“.
In these sutta, the Buddha explained to Ananda about emptiness in transcendent states of
meditation. Buddhadasa did not examine the contents of these sutta as specifically as the
Dhammadinna Sutta in his preaching to popularise the concept to the lay Buddhists in
general23. Buddhadasa considered the concept of emptiness as the most essential

19 Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 114 - 121.

20 Phutthathat, Kan-tham-ngan dual chit wang phua sangkhom, p. 17.
21 Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, pp. 7 - 8 .
These sutta are in the Sunnatävagga, Upanpannäsa, Majjhima-nikäya. The Pali text is in Robert
Chalmers (ed.), The Majjhima-nikäya vol. Ill (London: The Pali Text Society, 1960), pp. 104 - 118.
There are at least two English translations of these texts available: I. B. Homer (trans.), The
collection of the middle length sayings (Majjhima-nikäya) vol. Ill (London: The Pali Text Society,
1959), pp. 147 - 162; and Bhikkhu Nänamoli (trans.), Bhikkhu Bodhi (translation edited and revised),
The middle length discourse of the Buddha (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995), pp. 965 - 978.
23 In order to indicate the significance of emptiness in the Theravada scriptures, Buddhadasa seems
to have most frequently cited the Pali phrase, Ye te suttantä Tathägatabhäsitä gambhirä gambhiratthä
lokuttarä suhnatapatisamyuttä. Including one occurrence in the Dhammadinna sutta, this phrase is
mentioned altogether four times in the Suttapitaka, according to Lamotte’s study on emptiness in
certain Buddhist scriptures. It appears in: “Ani”, M. Leon Feer (ed.), Samyutta-nikäya Part II
Nidäna-vagga (London: The Pali Text Society, 1960), p. 267; Richard Morris and A. K. Warder (ed.),
Ahguttara-nikäya Part I (London: The Pali Text Society, 1961), p. 72; Richard Morris and A. K.
Warder (ed.), Ahguttara-nikäya Part III (London: The Pali Text Socity, 1961), p. 107 (Etienne Lamotte,
L e traite de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nägärjuna, p. 2004).
153
teaching of Buddhism regardless of schools, because it is related to the state in which
suffering is overcome.
These five points often became topics in the discussion about emptiness or
empty mind that Buddhadasa provoked in the Buddhist public sphere in Thailand. In the
following sections, I will examine how these points were discussed by his opponents
and his followers.

2. Discussions with Kukrit Pramoj

From 1963 to 1965 the Teachers’ Association (Khurusapha) had three series of
panel discussions and a public lecture, which was entitled “Dhamma as a tool to build a
person, to build a nation, and to build the world”, where Buddhadasa and Kukrit were
the main guest speakers24. This was an attractive event for Thai intellectual audiences
because it involved two of the most respected intellectuals in Thailand, Buddhadasa and
Kukrit25. Buddhadasa was a preacher who could seriously present essential points of the
dhamma which people in general had until then not been aware of in their ordinary
Buddhist practice. He was a monk who gained popularity not because of amusing jokes
and funny stories, but because of the impressiveness of his religious message. On the
other hand, Mom Ratchawong Kukrit was a lay elite intellectual who belonged to the
secular world. He was a fourth generation descendent of King Rama II, and had a B.A.
with honours in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Queen’s College, Oxford.

24 The title was, in Thai, “Thamma nai thana pen khruang mu sang khon, sang chat, lae sang lok”.
There are several books that collect the discussions at the Khurusapha by Buddhadasa and Kukrit.
Here I refer to Arun Wetchasuan’s edition. Arun wrote that the version that Pun Chongprasoet’s
Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism prepared had been widely read, but it was an
incomplete record of the whole discussion, it omitted the beginning and the end (Arun Wetchasuan,
“Kham nam” (Introduction), Arun Wetchasuan (ed.), Wiwattha: khwam-hen mai trong kan rawang
mom ratchawong khukrit pramot kap than phutthathat phikkhu (Dispute: disagreement of opinions
between M. R. W. Kukrit Pramoj and Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) (Bangkok: Arun witthaya, 1977,
1996), p. 8). Also, Pun’s edition only collected the second of the three Khurusapha events, while
Arun’s provides all three with precise details of time and date.
25 Although their reputations could have been different in the 1960s, in an opinion poll both Kukrit
and Buddhadasa were elected to the list of “Ordinary citizens [i.e. non-royal family] too precious to
leave the world” (Kan-chak-pai khong samanchon thi khon sia dai mak thi sut) and were in the top
ten of its ranking in 1999. Kukrit was in third place, winning 31.5% of the votes, while Buddhadasa
was in sixth place, 20.9% votes (“Khrongkan sanruat prachamati phua sathon phap ruam sangkhom,
kanmuang, watthanatham thai kon pi 2000” (Public opinion survey for reflecting a total picture of
Thai society, politics, and culture before 2000), Thai phot (Thai Post, a daily newspaper), 13
December 1999, p. 2).
154
After his return from England in 1933, Kukrit demonstrated his ability in many areas, as
a banker, a newspaper columnist, a novelist, and a politician. Before the early 1960s,
Kukrit had been elected as an M.P. many times and had even served as a minister in the
cabinet of Khuan Aphaiwong from 1947 - 1948. In 1950 he launched the newspaper
Sayam rat, which he owned and contributed to as a main columnist26. Kukrit was also
popular for his skilful speech, through which he often made cynical comments and
jokes about his discussant’s arguments, and invited audience laughter and applause.
Even though by blood he belonged to a royal lineage and in terms of ideology he was a
royalist, Kukrit was rather one of the popular figures in democratic parliamentary
politics and in the Thai public sphere.
The series’ first panel discussion was held on 6 July 1963 with the invitation of
Buddhadasa and three discussants: Kukrit Pramoj, Pui Rotchanaburanon, and Chanthit
Krasaesin, under the title, “Ngan khu kan-patibat-tham” (Work is a practice of the
dhamma). This first discussion was broadcast throughout the country by television and
radio27.
In the discussion, Buddhadasa expressed his idea that the dhamma should not be
left to the monasteries but should be applied in everyday life. He said that when
speaking of the dhamma, people should not consider it as abandoning or escaping from
the secular world. Instead, the true dhamma, said Buddhadasa, teaches those who live in
the secular world to overcome the world, in other words, not to have suffering in the
world28. In this discussion, Kukrit basically agreed with Buddhadasa, although he
playfully twisted Buddhadasa’s words with his eloquence, for which he was well known,
by saying,
When we listen to the radio or television, they say that work is for money. ... I feel
so tired and want to ask [Buddhadasa] a way to escape from the world like this. I
do not want to live there.

26 Kasaem Sirisamphan, Sunthari Asawai, Atcharaphon Kamutthaphisamai, Sathaban Thai Khadi

Suksa (eds.), “Prawat mom ratchawong khukrit pramot” (A life history of M. R. W. Kukrit Pramoj),
Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop satstrachan phon tri mom ratchawong khukrit
pramot, po. cho., mo. po. cho., mo. wo. mo. (Commemoration at the cremation of Professor Major
General Mom Ratchawong Kukrit Pramoj, Pathom Chulachomklao, Maha Paramaphon Chang
phuak, Maha Wachira Mongkut [these three are decorations that Kukrit received from the king]) (23
December 1995), pp. 4 3 - 5 1 .
27 Arun, “Kham nam”, p. 6.
28 Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 15 - 16.
155
To this comment of Kukrit, the audience laughed and applauded29.

Furthermore, by opposing the prevailing saying, “Work is money, money is

work”, Buddhadasa proposed an alternative idea, “Work is for work’s sake” by the

taking up of one’s duty, which he regarded as a practice of the dhamma. He expanded this

argument and said that if we work for money, conflicts between capitalists and labourers

arise; on the other hand, if labourers are satisfied to practise the dhamma in their duty,

there w ill be no conflict, thus such an ideology as communism would have never been

born in the world . Buddhadasa insisted that

To practise the dhamma is to practise a duty. To practise a duty means to produce

the beneficial [result] of the duty. This point is a pure dhammajäti (nature), and is
the mind which is empty from [egotistical] attachment to self31.

One o f the discussants, Chanthit disagreed with this position of Buddhadasa and

regarded it as an idea only suitable for ordained people. He maintained the truth of the

prevailing saying, “Work is money, money is work that creates happiness”, and this is

the natural understanding of lay people who are attached to staying in the secular

worldj2. In the face o f their disagreement, Kukrit supported Buddhadasa’s view in this

first panel discussion. Kukrit said,

[I] completely agree with Ven. Buddhadasa who said that in our Buddhist religion
the highest good that Buddhists should do is to act in accordance with duty. In
general, for everyone who believes in Buddhism, who is not necessarily an
ordained person, but farmers, government officials, army officers, and people in
any other occupations including renunciates, the so-called good act is to do [one’s]
duty perfectly3 .

After the session, Kukrit even wrote an article, which supported the view of

29 Arun, Wiwattha, p. 39.

30 Arun, Wiwattha, p. 59.
31 Arun, Wiwattha, p. 65. For this argument, the definition of the dhamma that Buddhadasa explained
should be noted. He said on other occasion, “The word, dhamma, according to Pali or Sanskrit, has
four meanings. [First,] it is all nature, earth, water, wind, fire, mind, form, and anything that is nature
itself is called the dhamma. [Second,] all nature has the laws of nature (Pali: dhammajäti). For example,
it has impermanence, suffering, non-self, and so on. These are called laws of nature. [Third,] the
dhamma is the duty for human beings to practise. Morality, meditation, wisdom, or the duties of
human beings whatever occupation they do for a living are called the dhamma. [Fourth,] various
fruits that arise from doing duties, for example, happiness, suffering, money or whatever, are called
the dhamma as they are” (Phinit Rakthongko (ed.), Thammanukrom thammakhot (Thammakhot
[literally means “dhamma propagation”; this is a title of the collection of Buddhadasa’s works]
Dictionary of the dhamma) (Chaiya: Thammathan Mulanithi, 1994), p. 132. This book,
Thammanukrom thammakhot, is a dictionary of important Buddhist concepts that one of
Buddhadasa’s lay disciples codified from the twelve books in the Thammakhot, the collection of
Buddhadasa’s works).
3~ Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 66 —67.
33 Arun, Wiwattha, p. 71.
156
Buddhadasa about this, “Work is to practise the dhamma ’ in Sayam rat (Siamese nation),

the newspaper that he owned34.

However, in the second discussion at Khurusapha Kukrit and Buddhadasa

started to disagree with each other. In the second discussion only Buddhadasa and

Kukrit were invited to discuss the topic, “Work with empty mind (How should we

understand the dhamma?)” . In the beginning of their discussion, Kukrit agreed with

Buddhadasa, who criticised people’s enthusiasm for memorising scriptural passages and

all the numbers of certain characteristics of mind in the Abhidhamma theory, which

made it difficult to reach the real meaning of the dhamma, or how to overcome

suffering . However, when Buddhadasa spoke of chit wang or empty mind, Kukrit

opposed Buddhadasa with the insolently polite attitude of a royal descendent by calling

Buddhadasa “tai thao ” (Your Excellency)37.

By proposing “work with empty mind”, Buddhadasa argued that we should

carry out all our duties with a non-egotistical mind, or no sense of the self and

34 The article was later reprinted in a book that collected Kukrit’s columns, Phutthasasana kap
khukrit (Buddhism and Kukrit) (Arun, “Kham nam”, p. 6).
33 Although here I focus on their discussion on empty mind, there were in fact two major issues of
conflict. Apart from the relevance of empty mind for lay people, Kukrit and Buddhadasa did not
agree on the role of faith (Thai: sattha; Pali: saddhä). Kukrit demanded a foundation for Buddhism.
Kukrit argued that people should first have faith in the triple gem: the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the
Sangha, and then believe in what the Buddha taught: dukkha (suffering), samudaya (origin), nirodha
(cessation), and magga (path). Without this first basic faith and understanding of doctrines, Kukrit
assumed that people would misunderstand or lose themselves in the world of attachment and
sufferings (Arun, Wiwattha, p. 109). Buddhadasa partially agreed with Kukrit in the second session,
but after experiencing an escalation of conflict in Kukrit’s critical columns, Buddhadasa took up this
point to criticise Kukrit in the third session of the Khurusapha. In it, Buddhadasa said that Kukrit
was trying to bring dogma into Buddhism. According to Buddhadasa, Buddhism is a religion of
pannä (wisdom), not of faith, so dogma does not exist in the religion of pannä as in religions of faith.
Buddhadasa explained that saddhä in Buddhism cannot be faith or belief in religions with dogma. In
Buddhism people should examine everything, then have faith afterwards. He referred to the
Buddha’s teaching to be free (Thai: itsard) in thinking, examining, understanding, and in each
practice and also to be self-reliant all the time. Thus, Buddhadasa said, “To believe in the Buddha,
the Dhamma, the Sangha, kamma, or anything before having pannä only depends on a person’s
necessity. It is not a principle of Buddhism at all” (Arun, Wiwattha, p. 146).
36 Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 8 1 -8 5 .
37 According to Photchananukrom chabap ratchaband.it sathan pho. so. 2525 (A Thai dictionary:
the Royal Academy 1982 edition), tai thao is defined as “A pronoun used for those whom we respect.
A personal pronoun” (Photchananukrom chabap Ratchabandit Sathan Pho. So. 2525 (Bangkok:
Akson charoen that, 1982), p. 362). As far as I understand, the second person pronoun, tai thao,
seems to be equivalent to the third person pronoun, chao khun, which is used for those on whom has
been conferred a bandasak (court title) above the level of phraya, or a samanasak (ecclesiastical
title) above phra ratcha khana (see the definition of “chao khun” in Photchananukrom chabap
ratchabandit sathan pho. so. 2525, p. 219). At the time of this discussion, Buddhadasa held the
ecclesiastical title, Phra Ratchachaikawi, which is the level of phra ratcha khana.
157
possession by the self, because when the mind is free from egoism, the work would be
well done. However, Kukrit said that he did not know how to work with empty mind in
the secular world, and if his mind were empty from egoism, he would not work, but
no

would be ordained, instead . For Kukrit, work in secular society contradicts empty
mind and the overcoming of suffering, because worldly happiness means suffering from
the viewpoint of the dhamma, and success in works makes sense only in the secular
world. Kukrit argued,
Work is in a state of attachment. If someone cannot abandon upädäna (clinging) yet,
the person has to continue working. It is a part of suffering. If I do my work with
empty mind, I still do not find a way. This is perhaps because I have a narrow
mind or eyes that do not discern the dhamma. I really cannot think of [how to work
with empty mind] yet. ... I express true respect, but I do not understand, and
would like to understand. ... These are [the different] expressions of a layman and
a monk. We live in a different world just like this39.

He said,
If I had determined only to make money in order to become rich, I would not have
been here today. I am not wang (empty/free)40.

Kukrit ’s point was that the world and the dhamma cannot go together.
Their disagreement about “work with empty mind” was a difference of opinion
whether it was relevant to apply the lokuttara dhamma (supra-mundane states) only to
monks or also to lay people. The lokuttara dhamma is contrasted with the lokiya dhamma

(mundane states). Thai Buddhists have been familiar with the lokiya dhamma, which
teaches people to keep morality by doing good and avoiding evil, but they have not
been so familiar with the lokuttara dhamma. The lokuttara dhamma is the teaching for those
who wish to become an arahant, in other words usually renunciates, because it indicates
paths to transcend the world for attaining nibbäna by extinguishing defilements and
suffering. To make the mind empty from defilements and clinging should be included in
the teaching of the lokuttara dhamma for the path of enlightenment and liberation, but
Buddhadasa promoted lay people using it in their life, for instance, for farmers while
they plough the field41. The difficulties in Buddhadasa’s proposal that Kukrit pointed

38 Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 122 - 124.

39 Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 123 - 124.
40 Arun, Wiwattha, p. 133.
41 Not just empty mind, Buddhadasa also promoted some other ideas belonging to the lokuttara
dhamma taught for the purpose of liberation, to be applied in lay life. For example, he said that four
iddhipäda (roads to power): chanda (zeal), viriya (will to strive), citta (concentration), and vimamsä
(investigation) for the attainment of nibbäna, farmers can also be reminded of and use these concepts
in their daily activities (Arun, Wiwattha, pp. 179 - 180).
158
out were also recognised by his keen proponent, Pun Chonprasoet. In his comments just
after their panel discussion, Pun wrote that both Buddhadasa and Kukrit were fair in
their manner of discussion, but their disagreement derived from their specialised areas,
respectively in the lokuttara and the lokiya,, especially Buddhadasa’s inexpertness in the
lokiya realm4“.

Kukrit’s criticism after the Khurusapha discussions

The true nature of the conflict appeared after their second Khurusapha
discussion, which was not perceived as too radical. Kukrit hated Buddhadasa strongly,
and became a prominent opponent. On his birthday in 1964 or 1965, which was either
the same year or a year after they had the disagreement at Khurusapha, Kukrit received
a book of Buddhadasa as a birthday gift from a poet, Prakat Watcharaphon. Kukrit got
very angry, and said that his birthday had became ill-omened. He threw Buddhadasa’s
book onto the ground, and drove Prakat out of his house43. In another occasion, Kukrit
said that if Buddhism had only lokuttara dhamma, empty mind, and Zen, he would quit
believing in Buddhism. Kukrit considered that every suffering could be solved only by
mettä so that he left nibbäna wherever it was. Kukrit considered, as reported by Pun,
“heaven is only a night club, nibbäna is only a tranquilliser, and Suan Mokkh is nothing
different from Disneyland (namely a town of puppets in America for the amusement of
children)”44.
Not only was he emotionally antagonistic to Buddhadasa, Kukrit wrote a
number of essays that opposed Buddhadasa, especially in his newspaper, Sayam rat45.
Kukrit used his position as an oratorical popular politician and columnist, he linked
Buddhadasa’s propagation of lokuttara dhamma with the issue of national security in the
Cold War period. According to Pun Chongprasoet, in May 1972 Kukrit wrote an article

42 Pun Chongprasoet, “Thung than phu an” (To readers), Wiwattha (khwam-mai-hen-trong-kan)
rawang mom ratchawong khukrit pram ot kap than phutthathat phikkhu (A dispute: disagreement of
opinions between M. R. W. Kukrit Pramoj and Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) (Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana, 1 April 1964; reprinted by Bangkok: Pho. cho. po., 1986), pp. 5 - 6 .
3 Pun Chongprasot, “Khwam-hen khong mom ratchawong khukrit nai ruang ‘chit wang’” (The
view of M. R. W. Kukrit on ‘Empty mind’), Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, p.
22.
44 Pun Chongprasot, “Khwam-hen khong mom ratchawong khukrit”, pp. 22 - 23. The bracketed
phrase seems to have been added by Pun rather than by Kukrit.
3 Arun, “Kham nam”, p. 7.
159
criticising the propagation of lokuttara dhamma in Duang prathip (A light), a journal of the
Department of Religious Affairs, and Pun summarised Kukrit’s main arguments in his
book46. In this article, Kukrit argued that if teachings of the lokuttara dhamma, including
sufihatä, spread to the people, Buddhism would become an evil obstacle to the
development of the nation. Because it teaches people to extinguish defilements, craving,
desires, a sense of the self, and clinging, people would lose interest in developing the
country when they achieve empty mind and become arahant.

However, instead of rejecting the whole of Buddhism as useless, Kukrit

considered lokiya dhamma to be promoted as a principle of national development. The
lokiya dhamma teaches people the law of kamma: those who do good will receive good;
those who do evil will receive evil. According to Kukrit, the lokiya dhamma is based on
the transient truth which considers those who perform kamma to have a self, so people
can act aiming at the fruit of the act for the benefit of themselves and of other people47.
In this way Kukrit regarded a beneficial function of the lokiya dhamma as a principle of
social development.
On the other hand, Kukrit explained that the lokuttara dhamma is a teaching
aimed at not making any suffering arise, as a result of one’s actions being sunnatä or
empty. In the state of emptiness, according to Kukrit, people could not remain in
ordinary lay life so they would have to escape from society, he regarded this as natural
for the attainment of nibbäna . Also, in the lokuttara dhamma both positive kamma and
negative kamma in the lokiya dhamma should be avoided, because both of them mean
khwam-koet (arising), which can lead to suffering. Thus, in lokuttara dhamma Kukrit
argued,
To struggle over whatever we consider good in the world, society and
development is an act of demerit. Instead, an act, which does not cause anything to
arise, does not cause any fruit for society or oneself at all, is the right act in
lokuttara dhamma .

Kukrit understood that the lokuttara dhamma had been restricted from spreading to people

46 Pun Chongprasot, “Kham nam” (introduction), Pun Chongprasoet (ed.), Arai thuk, arai phit
(Originally published by Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1973; reprinted by Mulanithi phoei phrae
chiwit prasoet, 1982). In the book Pun’s summary of Kukrit’s article was published as: “Khwam-hen
bang ton khong mom ratchawong khukrit pramot” (Some parts of the view of M. R. W. Kukrit
Pramoj), ?\m ,A rai thuk, arai phit, pp. 1 - 8 .
47 “Khwam-hen bang ton khong mom ratchawong khukrit pramot”, pp. 3 - 4 .
48 “Khwam-hen bang ton khong mom ratchawong khukrit pramot”, p. 4.
49 “Khwam-hen bang ton khong mom ratchawong khukrit pramot”, p. 5.
160
by traditional secular authorities because it is a profoundly disquieting truth which
would prevent the nation from developing^0.
In Kukrit’s understanding of Buddhism, those who follow the path of arahant

are the ones who have abandoned the world for their own accomplishment, and they do
not make a contribution to society. This view on lokuttara dhamma coincided with the
Marxist criticism of religion which is considered as idealism useless for revolutionary
change in society, although Kukrit was known as a keen opponent of communism. As a
liberal, but conservative royalist politician, Kukrit did not totally deny Buddhism, but
proposed to make use of Buddhism by equating the aspect of the lokiya dhamma to an
ideology of national development. By national development, in the political context of
the late 1960s and the 1970s, he meant improved welfare for people in order to prevent
the penetration of communism into Thailand. Kukrit’s viewpoint was that of a rightist
politician, in which Buddhism had to be an attractive counter-ideology of Marxism for
people to become attached to, rather than a means to achieve transcendent liberation by
abandoning clinging to a self or the possessions of a self.
Buddhadasa had a view different from Kukrit’s. Buddhadasa also saw that
Buddhism was useful for the work of society, but by Buddhism he meant lokuttara

dhamma. Contrary to Kukrit, Buddhadasa did not understand lokuttara dhamma as a

religion only for those who abandon the world, but as a way to conduct secular duty
most efficiently and enjoyably, and to produce the most desirable result.
Although in their second discussion at the Khurusapha, the significant conflict
was regarding an appropriate teaching related to whether people were ordained or not,
the implication of this dispute should not be considered as the ideological strife between
Catholic and Protestant in Christianity. In fact, it was Buddhadasa, a monk, who
promoted that lay people practise the lokuttara dhamma which used to be occupied by only
a few monks, and Kukrit, a layman, who was opposed to the possibility of opening it up
for ordinary lay people. By his propagation of lokuttara dhamma to lay people,
Buddhadasa did not intend to lead a Protestant kind of movement to abolish the
monk-lay distinction which would negate the existing order of the Sangha.
Also, it is not quite right to identify the conflict between Buddhadasa and

50 “Khwam-hen bang ton khong mom ratchawong khukrit pramot”, p. 5.

161
Kukrit as an ideology of commoners versus that o f royal high-society members.

Buddhadasa recalled that among the audience at the discussion with Kukrit, Mom Chao

Suphasawat Sawatdiwat (Chin), a royal descendent who had even higher status and

closer links with the recent kings than Kukrit, encouraged Buddhadasa rather than

Kukrit51. There were quite a few of Buddhadasa’s supporters among the royal family,

including the Queen Mother of the present king52.

Perhaps for Kukrit, who could not completely overcome Buddhadasa in the

Khurusapha discussion, one of the most efficient ways to keep face with the audience in

the public sphere was to link their disagreement to differences in ideological, political

positions. When Kukrit argued that Buddhadasa’s propagation of empty mind and

Jokuttara dhamma was problematic for the national security situation, which was becoming

more and more serious in the face of the escalating Vietnam War, he could easily give

people the impression that Buddhadasa might be an unorthodox, threatening monk. The

disagreement of Kukrit and Buddhadasa continued throughout the period of ideological

conflict, and it was only when Buddhadasa passed away in 1993 that Kukrit expressed

his high respect for Buddhadasa in his column, “Soi suan phlu” (Suan Phlu Lane)53. The

article marked the end of their rivalry.

51 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 341. Mom Chao Suphasawat is a grandson of King Mongkut, and a
son of Prince Sawat. Mom Chao Suphasawat was an elder brother of Queen Rambhai Bami of King
Prajadhipok. His father, Prince Sawat, was a younger brother of the grandmother of King Ananda
and King Bhumibol. Although by blood King Bhumibol is closer to Mom Chao Suphasawat than
Kukrit, he sought political support from Kukrit rather than Mom Chao Suphasawat. Mom Chao
Suphasawat had an important political role as a leader of the Free Thai movement in England, and he
supported Pridi Phanomyong, whose downfall was brought about by Kukrit through the mysterious
death of King Ananda Mahidon. This personal background indicates that Mom Chao Suphasawat
was in opposition to Kukrit in real politics, as well as in the discussion over empty mind in
Buddhism. The royal family members are not necessarily allied against commoners either in politics
or discussions of Buddhism. I thank Prof. Eiji Murashima who kindly explained to me these
biographical facts about Mom Chao Suphasawat.
32 The fact that the Queen Mother recommended inviting Buddhadasa to give a lecture in 1960 at
Chulalongkom University indicates that she was in favour of Buddhadasa’s teaching (Sanya
Thammasak (Sanya Dhammasakdi), Nathi khong phutthasamakhom (The duty of the Buddhist
Association) (Bangkok: Phutthasamakhom haeng prathet thai, 1961), pp. 25 - 26).
33 Khukrit Pramot (Kukrit Pramoj), “Soi suan phlu”, Say am rat rai wan (Siam rath daily newspaper)
(10 July 1993), p. 5. Although this article mainly discussed expressions for death in Thai and the
news of Buddhadasa’s death was the introduction of his main argument, Kukrit clearly expressed his
respect to Buddhadasa and his teachings as " ... free from superstitious beliefs, but containing only
scrupulous rationality, the true dhamma of the Buddha is unrestricted by time and is provable by
ourselves”.
162
An understanding of empty mind bv Buddhadasa’s followers
The discussion about empty mind was not confined to just Buddhadasa and
Kukrit. Especially after Kukrit’s criticism made people sceptical of Buddhadasa and
empty mind, Buddhadasa’s lay disciples also reacted against Kukrit. Those of
Buddhadasa’s disciples who determined to assist the propagation of his teaching spread
not only Buddhadasa’s defending arguments, but they also expressed their own views
and understandings about empty mind. The most prominent role as such was played by
Pun Chongprasoet, the president of the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism.
Pun published a number of booklets that opposed Kukrit using both
Buddhadasa’s words and his own essays and comments34. In one of those books, Pun
stated that one purpose for publishing the booklet was:
I used to like the writings of M. R. W. Kukrit for a long time, and was never an
opponent of him. However, when he expressed micchäditthi on the Buddha’s
teachings like this many times, I considered that it is not only a lot of verbal
offence to Ven. Buddhadasa, but also has the intention to distort the Buddha’s
teachings by speaking badly about teachings at the level of lokuttara dhamma, sunnatä,
and the accomplishing of the nibbäna of the Buddha. Also, there is no one who
dares to challenge him at all. If [we] leave his smart expressions further unchecked,
it is going to be dangerous to Buddhism, and it will make those who pay respect to
him follow his deluded way. Thus, I think that it is appropriate for me to crush the
kilesa of M. R. W. Kukrit in order to prevent it from becoming too active and a
danger to society. ... [People] are deluded to be afraid only that communists will
destroy Buddhism, but about the fact that someone of the capitalist and sakdina
(feudalist) class is openly destroying Buddhism in this way, no one knows and no
one points out. Is this love of the nation and religion? His mouth shouts to protect
religion, but he himself does not know what the religion teaches, where it is, or
how to protect it. These days there are only such talkative people who [just] follow
their feelings/emotions (Thai: arorri) [but do not have a good understanding of
Buddhism]53.

Such a reaction by Pun to Kukrit represented an expansion of the discussion about

empty mind in the Buddhist public sphere of Thailand. Pun indicated that Kukrit was
campaigning from his socially privileged position to promote the religion of the Thai
nation, Buddhism, for national security against communism, but the politically
motivated campaign was not necessarily based on a deep understanding about the

34 In the publication list of the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism that was attached to
one of its booklets (Than Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae), there are at least four
relating to Kukrit: Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae; Khwam-long phit khong sangkhom nai
ruang kan tham bun (The delusion of society in making merit), Arai thuk, arai phit; wiwattha nai
ruang ‘chit wang’ (Disputes about empty mind). Apart from this list, there is: Than phutthathat,
Kan-tham-ngan duai chit wang phua sangkhom, which seems to be Pun’s summary of Buddhadasa’s
third session at the Khurusapha and some other of Buddhadasa’s preaching in response of Kukrit.
33 [Pun Chongprasoet], “Maihet khong ongkan funfu phutthasasana” (A note by the Organisation for
the Restoration of Buddhism), Pun Chongprasoet, “Khwam-hen khong mom ratchawong khukrit nai
ruang ‘chit wang’”, Than phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae, p. 30.
163
content of the religion. When Kukrit called Buddhadasa’s propagation of empty mind
and lokuttara dhamma a hindrance for national security, and Kukrit was accused as
belonging to the “capitalist” and “sakdina class”, the connotations of their conflict were
twisted to the ideological conflict between the right and the left. Even though Kukrit
was only a secular intellectual without long monastic experience, who can only with
difficulty be regarded as representing any orthodoxy of Thai Buddhism, as a result of
the conflict, Buddhadasa became perceived to be unorthodox and a radical preacher in
the Buddhist public sphere.
Aside from defending Buddhadasa from Kukrit’s criticism, Pun also played an
important role in popularising the idea of empty mind by his supplementary comments
on Buddhadasa’s preaching ^ . Pun’s explanation of empty mind suggests how
Buddhadasa’s followers perceived this concept unfamiliar from their past intellectual
experiences. In a booklet, following a preaching of Buddhadasa, which is entitled
“Working with empty mind for society”, Pun wrote a supplementary essay, “What
should we do to be called working with empty mind”57. In his essay, Pun explained the
idea of working with empty mind by giving examples of several occupations, such as a
Prime Minister, governors, government officials, judges, soldiers, executors, policemen,
businessmen, and renunciates. Those examples showed how empty mind works in
secular society, even though the concept of emptiness, in which state a mind is freed
from the defilements of greediness, anger, delusion, craving and fear, but is filled with
saüpannä, is too difficult for some people to understand. In the case of MPs, Pun
commented as follows:
If they [determined to] stand for and [eventually] are elected in order to do a duty
for people’s benefit, not because they expected a monthly salary (15,000 baht per
month) or to seek indirect benefit for themselves, they can dare to say and do
something in their duty with ‘empty mind’ gloriously. They do not sell themselves
to capitalists or sakdina, because they do not expect to become more important
than being a representative of people. When they compete for election, they do not
become addicted to bribery of people, so-called ‘vote-buying’ as capitalists
expend millions of baht by expecting that if they can become a Minister, they
might be able to gain more than they spent in a short period. MPs with ‘empty
mind’ thus tend to be elected every time, even though they themselves do not have

56 Usually Pun published booklets, which consisted of a sermon of Buddhadasa, and his own essay
and some supplementary comments on recent incidents and discussions which had taken place in the
Thai Buddhist public sphere.
37 Pun Chongprasoet, “Cha tham yang rai chung cha riak wa tham-ngan duai chit wang” (What
should we do to be called working with empty mind?), Than phutthathat (Ven. Buddhadasa),
Kan-tham-ngan duai chit wang phua sangkhom (Working with empty mind for society)
(Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1975), pp. 23 - 29.
164
 money to deceive anyone58.

Pun even insisted that communists should also have empty mind. Pun said,
... otherwise they are fake communists who still have thick kilesa and intense tanka,
by which they only think to rob rich people of their fortune to make it their own;
they want to kill capitalists or ordinary people who have not yet agreed with them;
and have the intention to eradicate kings who have dasaräjadhamma (ten kingly
virtues). They have not yet dedicated themselves for the public. They have not
even had a thought to do something for society. They only advertise their ideology
with words, but they still cannot do it. They are provocative because they want to
be famous, intend to be a head, and then they will be able to look for a benefit for
themselves as do all people with thick kilesa. In a group of communists thus there
are still mutual betrayals, mutual competitions for positions, and frequent murders
of each other. These are because they still do not have true ‘empty mind’59.

In 1975 when this booklet of Pun was published, the conflict between
communist insurgency and the government’s counter-insurgency was becoming tense. It
was true that people were sick of the thorarat, or the three inter-related military
dictators before the 14 October 1973 uprising, but politicians in the post-uprising
democratic parliament did not exhibit many differences from the corrupt dictators on
this issue. Enthusiasm for communist theories of revolution and struggles existed
among students and intellectuals, but the actual politics and human nature of
international communist leaders did not meet people’s expectations for fairness. People
were never satisfied with the existing politicians, but at the same time they feared a
communist take-over of the existing order as successive Thai governments had been
foretelling. In such conditions, people could divert themselves by Buddhadasa’s
proposal of a non-egotistical conduct of duty with empty mind, which supported and
was supported by Pun’s comical criticisms of those powerful authorities and equally
frightening counter-authorities. Pun’s discussions of empty mind were one of his
contemporary expressions of and responses to people’s demand for social justice in the
Buddhist public sphere.

3. Discussions by Buddhadasa’s opponents and followers

As a result of the Khurusapha discussions with Kukrit, Buddhadasa’s concept

of empty mind became widely known among Thai Buddhists. More people started to
talk about empty mind, and more criticism appeared in the Buddhist public sphere in the

58 Pun, “Cha tham yang rai chung cha riak wa tham-ngan duai chit wang”, pp. 25 - 26.
59 Pun, “Cha tham yang rai chung cha riak wa tham-ngan duai chit wang”, p. 29.
165
late 1960s and the early 1970s.
Arai thuk, arai phit (What is right? What is wrong?), was a booklet in which
Pun Chongprasoet collected the arguments on empty mind from both supporting and
opposing standpoints. To focus debate on the issue, he contrasted his summary of
Kukrit’s article on empty mind60 and three of Buddhadasa’s sermons, which were
actually delivered five years before Kukrit’s criticism, but Pun considered them as apt
responses to Kukrit’s points61. Apart from the discussions by Kukrit and Buddhadasa, in
the appendix of the book Pun reprinted a handbill, articles, a public lecture and letters
by other advocates. By juxtaposing the opinions from both the pro and the con sides,
Pun created in one book a wethi, or a stage of public forum about empty mind. Also, by
asking the readers “Krai thuk, krai phit” (Who is right? Who is wrong?)62, Pun invited
people to think about their position on this issue. Here, I am going to explore the
discussions that Pun reprinted in the appendix of the book.
Participants in the discussion forum were varied. As major opponents of
Buddhadasa, there were Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu (1936 - ; a popular Abhidhamma preacher
and leader of an anti-communist popular movement), and “Khamhuno” (1924 - ; a
pseudonym of Chamrat Duangthisan, a famous columnist at the Sayam rat weekly
magazine). Pun matched each of them with counter-arguments from ordinary citizens
who were dissatisfied with their arguments against Buddhadasa. Then, Pun introduced a
public lecture by Sanya Dhammasakdi (1907 - ; Sanya had served as the Prime Minister,
the chair of the Privy Council, and the president of the Buddhist Association of
Thailand), an opinion in support of Buddhadasa’s concept of empty mind by a socially
respected figure. Lastly Pun concluded the whole discussion merely as a moderator.

60 I have already examined Kukrit’s argument in this article, which was first published in Duang
prathip in May 1972. See p. 160 and footnote 46.
61 Phutthathat Phikkhu (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), “Uppasak haeng kan phoei phrae tham” (Obstacles
in propagation of the dhamma) (A lecture given at Wat Mahathat on 28 November 1967), Pun, Arai
thuk, arai p h it, pp. 9 - 7 1 ; Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Uppasak haeng kan khao chai thamma” (Obstacles
in understanding of the dhamma) (A preaching at Wat Noranatthasunthrikkaram, Bangkok on 4
February 1968), pp. 72 - 109; Pun Chongprasoet (ed.), “Chit praphatson - chit doem thae - chit
wang (Yo chak kham banyai khong than phutthathat phikkhu)” (A pure mind, a true original mind,
an empty mind (A summary of a lecture of Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu)) (a preaching at Suan Mokkh
on 28 July 1969), pp. 110 - 121.
62 Pun Chongprasoet, “Maihet” (An endnote), Pun,A rai thuk, arai phit, p. 8.
166
Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu versus “Pravut”

First, Pun introduced a handbill of Kittiwuttho that criticised Buddhadasa’s

proposal of empty mind and emptiness .

Kittiwuttho was known as a young, capable Abhidhamma preacher at Wat

Mahathat, who came from the third generation of a Chinese wholesale dealer’s family in

Nakhon Phathom province. Although there is an age difference of thirty years,

Kittiwuttho agreed that his background had some commonalties with Buddhadasa’s.

Both families originated in Hokkien province in China, had the same Chinese family

name, Khou (llF ), and had been doing business in Thailand. When they were small, both

of them helped the family business and started to learn Buddhism by themselves64.

Therefore, when they reached the age of twenty, both of them could start preaching

dhamma to people immediately. Kittiwuttho was ordained in 1957, read the Tipitaka in a

cave in Chumphon for six months, and studied Abhidhamma at Wat Mahathat with a

Burmese monk, Thechin, and his Thai assistant monk, Phra Khru Prakatsamathikhun.

From 1960, only three years after his ordination, Kittiwuttho started his dhamma

propagation on television and radio, and from 1965 he started a training project for

novices and young monks to become preachers6'. According to an Abhidhamma

classmate of Kittiwuttho, Kittiwuttho was very bright and his ability to memorise the
complicated Abhidhamma technical terms was beyond compare. Even though

Kittiwuttho had little background in either formal or ecclesiastical education, his

63 Pun wrote in his note that the handbill was brought to him by a supporter of Sawai Kaewsom at
the Lan Asok, Wat Mahathat, and that he was publishing it in order for other people with pannä to
examine what is right and what is wrong (Pun Chongprasoet, “Maihet” (an endnote), Kittiwuttho
Bhikkhu, “Ruang chit wang nok Phra Traipidok mi khwam samkham nai patchuban mak lae ruang
Phra Phuttha Chao son lokkuttara tham Nai Thammathinna kho plian thamma mai” (About [the
teaching of] empty mind which is not in the Tipitaka and places a lot of emphasis on the present time;
and about [the story that] the Buddha taught lokkuttara dhamma to Dhammadinna who asked for a new
dhamma) (Originally published as a mimeographed handbill on Mägha Püjä 1973), Pun, Arai thu/c,
arai phit, p. 131).
64 On his father’s side, Buddhadasa’s grandfather came to Thailand, while Kittiwuttho’s family
settled in Thailand during his father’s generation. Thus, Buddhadasa was third generation Chinese,
and Kittiwuttho second generation. On his mother’s side, Buddhadasa’s mother was ethnic Thai,
while Kittiwuttho’s mother was an ethnic Chinese bom in Thailand, her family also originated in
Hokkien province. The biographical information about Kittiwuttho is based on: Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu,
interview, Chonburi, 29 April 1999.
65 The training project is called “Nuai kan phatthana thang chit” (A unit to develop mind). It started
in 1965 at Wat Mahathat, and in 1968 it moved to Djitthabhawan College, which was then newly
built in Chonburi province (Kittiwuttho, interview). For Kittiwuttho’s anti-communist campaign, see
Charles F. Keyes, “Political crisis and militant Buddhism in contemporary Thailand”, Bardwell L.
Smith (ed.), Religion and legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, pp. 147 - 164.
167
classmate said that his ability to work for religion was encouraging for those monks
who were not parian, as those who had passed the Pali ecclesiastical examinations were
called66.
According to Pun, Kittiwuttho had been strongly opposed to empty mind in his
publications and dhamma lectures on radio from around 1964, only seven years after his
ordination. Kittiwuttho co-operated in the critical campaign against Buddhadasa with
Phra Thipparinya (Thup Klamphasut), who was one of the important lay supporters of
Wat Mahathat and the first person who, in 1948, labelled Buddhadasa a communist. In
1969 Phra Maha Khachit, who was then a novice studying under Kittiwuttho’s project,
witnessed Kittiwuttho burning Buddhadasa’s books because Kittiwuttho argued that
they would disseminate a wrong view that did not correspond to the Abhidhamma
theory67. Furthermore, Arun Wetchasuan said that in the mid-1970s many handbills that
made accusations about Buddhadasa were assumed to be published and distributed all
over the country by Kittiwuttho. Arun saw many local monks posting those handbills
allegedly of Kittiwuttho on temple walls because they hated Buddhadasa’s rational
teachings that would interfere with their way of making a living through supernatural
“services”. Arun thought of two reasons why Kittiwuttho would make the handbills.
One was because Buddhadasa radically criticised the Abhidhamma, which Kittiwuttho
relied on, as useless and so to be tom up and abandoned. The other reason Arun
suspected was revenge by the CIA on Buddhadasa, because he had declined to
co-operate with their propaganda. He assumed that the CIA had supervised and
provided funds for Kittiwuttho’s anti-communist mass organisation through which
Kittiwuttho carried out an anti-Buddhadasa campaign. Although these remarks were not
co
well supported by evidence, Arun said that it was very likely .
In the handbill that Pun reprinted in Arai thuk, arai phit, Kittiwuttho critically
examined the Dhammadinna sutta in the Tipipika by which Buddhadasa often legitimated

66 Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko, interview, Nonthaburi, 30 April 1999. Sithawat has been a follower
of Buddhadasa since he was a novice in Surat Thani in the early 1940s, and he helped Pun
Chongprasoet’s propagation activities in Wat Mahathat, and later for a long time he co-operated with
Wirot Siriat’s Sublime Life Mission. Although Kittiwuttho was notorious for his defamatory
campaign against Buddhadasa, Sithawat had a fair view about Kittiwuttho’s intellectual ability.
67 Phra Maha Khachit Siriwattho (The abbot of Suan Mokkh Chiang Rai), interview, Chiang Rai, 16
March 1999.
68 Arun Wetchasuan, interview, Bangkok, 2 March 1999.
168
his teaching of emptiness. Buddhadasa liked to indicate that when Dhammadinna and
five hundred lay disciples went to ask the Buddha to give a suitable teaching for lay
people, the Buddha recommended practising emptiness that had been taught by the
Tathägata (perfect one). Although Buddhadasa usually picked up only the first half of the

story of the Dhammadinna Sutta, the story continues further. Kittiwuttho introduced the
rest of the story in his handbill. To this advice by the Buddha, Dhammadinna answered
that they looked after house and children and handled gold and silver, it was not easy for
them to learn the discourses of the Tathägata. Instead, he asked the Buddha to teach those
who keep themselves firmly in lay five precepts. This time, the Buddha taught them to
have faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, and to conduct themselves with
the virtues of the Ariyan (Noble Ones) which would lead to concentration.
Dhammadinna answered that those conditions already existed in them. On hearing their
statement, the Buddha affirmed their attainment of the fruit of stream-winning (Pali:
sotapattiphalaf9.

By introducing the latter half of the story, Kittiwuttho insisted that neither this
section of the Tipitaka nor therefore the Theraväda School of Buddhism taught empty
mind as one teacher (by whom Kittiwuttho implied Buddhadasa) understood, namely
that the Buddha taught lay people to work or to have sexual intercourse with empty
mind . In order to support his criticism, Kittiwuttho quoted a phrase in the atthakathä
(commentary), Särattathappakäsini. The phrases that Kittiwuttho extracted from
Särattathappakäsini comment on the words that Buddhadasa liked to refer to in the

Dhammadinna sutta. According to Kittiwuttho’s Pali quotation,

lokuttarä[ti] lokuttaradipakä asankhatasamyuttädayo

(Kittiwuttho’s Thai translation: Plae wa bot lokuttara nan, dai kae asangkhata
sangyut pen ton, an sadaeng attha pen lokuttara)

(An English translation of Kittiwuttho’s Thai translation: lokuttara which is given in

etc. expresses the words of lokuttara)
asarngatasamyuttä

(An English translation from Pali: lokuttara stands for the meaning [of what is]
beyond the world, i.e. connected with the uncompounded and so on),

69 Here I have summarised the story of the Dhammadinna sutta from Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang
nok phra traipidok ...”, pp. 126 - 128; and F. L. Woodward, The book of the kindred sayings, pp. 347
- 349. Kittiwuttho’s story is basically the same as the English edition of the Pali Text Society’s
Tipitaka.
70 Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang nok phra traipidok ...”, pp. 128 - 129.
169
 sunnatappatisamyuttäti sattasunnatädipakä khajjanikasuttantädayo

(Kittiwuttho: Bot wa sunyatapptisangyutta nan, dai kae sut tang tang, mi

khatchanika sut pen ton, an sadaeng phawa thi wang chak sa t)

(A translation of Kittiwuttho: suhhatappatisamyuttä which is given in various sutta,

such as the Khajjanika Sutta, expresses the state that is empty/free from
animals/beings)

(A translation from Pali: suhhatappatisamyuttä stands for emptiness of a living being,

[like in] the Khajjanika-suttanta and so on) 1.

By citing the story of the Dhammadinna sutta and these phrases in the
commentary, Kittiwuttho argued that the Buddha never spoke of empty mind. He
explained that by the word, lokuttara the Buddha meant asamkhata-dhamma\ by sunna he
meant the five aggregates which are empty of/free from a person, as expressed in the
Khajjanika Sutta ". Furthermore, Kittiwuttho insisted that the teaching of emptiness or
empty mind belongs to Mahäyäna Buddhism, and does not belong to the Tipitaka and pure
Theraväda Buddhism. Therefore, he concluded, “to cite an idea which developed in the
tenth century after the extinction of the Buddha’s speaking is not a merit at all. It does
not help those who practise it. It is a wrong claim that it is the true word of the
Buddha”73.
In Kittiwuttho’s criticism of empty mind, there are at least three points to
notice. First, as Kittiwuttho said, it is true that in the Dhammadinna sutta the group of lay
people had the fruit of stream-winning (Pali: sotäpattiphala) even though they said that
they could not follow the teaching of emptiness as the Buddha recommended. In fact,
Buddhadasa also mentioned the latter half of the story in one of his sermons. In
Buddhadasa’s nuanced explanation, if sunhatä, or emptiness, is too advanced to practice,
there are only four items of practice, namely unshakeable faith in the Buddha, the
Dhamma, and the Sangha, and the observance of pure precepts, which are already
commonly practised, so people do not have to worry. Thus, Buddhadasa said, “If [they]
do not accept sunhatä, there is nothing to add”, by which he implied that lay people

71
Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang nok phra traipidok . .. ”, p. 129. Kittiwuttho wrote that these
phrases appear in page 402 of Särattathappakäsinl (probably one of the Thai script editions), but I was
unable to access the Thai script edition. I thank Royce Wiles for finding the text in the
Särattathappakäsini in a Roman script edition, and clarifying the meaning of the original Pali phrases.
72 Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang nok phra traipidok . .. ”, pp. 129 - 130. Khajjanika sutta is located
under the title, Khajjaniya sutta, in Samyutta-nikäya, Vol. Ill (London: Pali Text Society, 1960), pp. 86 -
91. An English translation of it is available in “The prey”, Kindred sayings on elements, Vol. Ill
(London: Pali Text Society, 1960), pp. 72 - 76.
3 Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang nok phra traipidok . ..”, p. 130.
170
 I

should be interested in sunnatä which is more than they are accustomed to, and also that
it was recommended as suitable for them by the Buddha74. This remark of Buddhadasa
indicates his selective interpretation from the scriptures. Buddhadasa still recommended
lay people to practise emptiness, even though it was not a necessary condition for lay
people’s spiritual liberation, as the Buddha still recognised they could arrive at
sotäpattiphala simply by the common code of lay practice.
However, as for the second point of Kittiwuttho’s argument, his conclusion by
citing this sutta and its commentary: namely that the concept of emptiness is not taught
in the Theraväda Tipitaka, went too far. Although it is commonly known that the ideas and
discussions about emptiness developed in Mahäyäna Buddhism as Kittiwuttho pointed
out, the fact that it exists in the Theraväda Tipiteka cannot be denied. Aside from the
Dhammadinna sutta , the Buddha also taught Ananda in the Culasunnatä sutta and the
nr
Mahäsunnatä sutta how to enter and abide in emptiness .
Moreover, when it is more carefully examined, the Särattathappakäsini, the
traditional Theraväda commentary that Kittiwuttho cited, is also supportive of the point
that often appeared in Buddhadasa’s preaching. The commentary explained the meaning
of sunnatä as “emptiness of a living being, [like in] the Khajjanika-suttanta and so on”76. In
the Khajjanika sutta, instead of mentioning the word, emptiness, the Buddha was saying “1
say, every body should be thus regarded as it really is, by right insight: ‘this is not mine;
this am not I; this is not the Self of me’”77. In other words, the ancient commentator of
the Theraväda School understood that sunnatä was to be understood as “empty [of self]” or
equivalent to non-self. Detachment from “me” and “mine” was one of the important

4 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “‘Sunnatä’ huachai khong Phutthasasana” (Emptiness: the heart of

Buddhism), Klum Watcharaphon (ed.), Phuttha-tham kam mu diao: ruam botkhwam lae patthakatha
khong than phutthathat phikkhu lae khun pun chongprasoet (A handful of the Buddha Dhamma:
collections o f essays and lectures by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Mr. Pun Chongprasoet)
(Bangkok: Klum Watcharaphon), pp. 37 - 38.
3 The Buddha said, “However, Ananda, there is this abiding discovered by the Tathägatha: to enter
and abide in voidness internally by giving no attention to all signs” (Robert Chalmers, The Majjhima-
nikäya Vol. Ill, p. I l l ; Bhikkhu Nänamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, The M iddle length discourse o f the
B uddha, p. 972), and he explained each level of jhäna and nibbäna. This passage is also cited in Rune
E. A. Johansson, “Nibbäna as emptiness”, The psychology o f nirvana (London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1969), p. 34.
76 See pp. 169 - 170 {Särattathappakäsini cited in Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang nok phra traipidok
. . . ”, p. 129; English translation from Pali by Dr. Royce Wiles).
77 R L. Woodward, The book o f the kindred sayings (Samyutta-nikäya) or grouped suttas: p a rt III
(Mahä-vagga) (London: The Pali Text Society, 1965), p. 75.
171
messages that Buddhadasa taught78.
Third, Kittiwuttho’s citation and his Thai translation of a Pali commentary is
perceived to be very difficult perhaps for most ordinary people who are not used to
technical terms of Buddhism in Pali. In his Thai translation of the Pali phrases, several
Pali words remained untranslated, and do not make sense if his audience did not already
have some knowledge of Buddhist technical terms. Especially when these almost
incomprehensible Pali terms were delivered fluently in his speech, people would have
felt that Kittiwuttho was truly an expert of Pali scriptures, an area they did not know
well, and they would even have had a feeling of high respect for him.
Furthermore, in his Thai translation, which was filled with Pali words, the only
comprehensible Thai phrase was wang chak sat. This is a translation of the Pali phrase,
sunhatappatisamyuttä, which actually means “emptiness of a living being”, but for those
Thais not specialising in Buddhist scriptures, Kittiwuttho’s Thai translation was
perceived as something like “not having a violent nature like an animal”/9. In other
words, Kittiwuttho’s Thai translation only functioned to give Thai people an ambiguous
impression that the emptiness in the Pali scriptures was not at all so deep as Buddhadasa
was trying to say, but something to do with the nature of beasts. Especially when
KiUiwuttho presented it with rather trustworthy points, such as the latter half of the
Dhammadinna sutta and the Mahäyäna development of emptiness, people became more
inclined to accept his main, false claim: i.e. that the concept of emptiness does not exist
in the Theraväda Tipitaka. This was a shrewd technique by an eloquent preacher,
Kittiwuttho.
In the face of such arguments from Kittiwuttho, Buddhadasa’s followers
reacted strongly. As a counter-argument to Kittiwuttho, although it was not directly
about the handbill, Pun introduced a letter from “Prayut”80. Prayut, who worked for the
Irrigation Department, was perhaps an ordinary lay follower of Buddhadasa but at a
distance from Buddhadasa’s personal acquaintance. He felt that he could not stand

78 Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, “Me and mine”, Swearer, Donald K. (trans. & ed.), Me and. mine: selected
essays o f Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 80 - 114.
79 A comment from a Thai lecturer at the Australian National University when I asked the meaning
of the Thai phrase that Kittiwuttho translated from Pali.
80 “Prayut” (This name looks like either a first name or a pseudonym), “Samnao chotmai thung
kittiwuttho phikkhu” (The draft of a letter to Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu) (The letter is dated 6 February
1965), Pun,A ra i thuk, arai phit, pp. 132 - 137.
172
listening to Kittiwuttho’s accusations against Buddhadasa and empty mind on the radio,
so he sent his letter of refutation, one copy to Kittiwuttho, and another to Pun in order to
share his view with other people .
Prayut perceived that Kittiwuttho did not examine the empty nature of mind
from his own experience and wisdom, but he only followed classical commentaries
written after the death of the Buddha. Prayut also pointed out that in the radio broadcast
Kittiwuttho distorted the fact that the concept of emptiness does exist in the Tipitaka, and
manipulated the meaning of suhnatä to be “total vanishing”. He indicated that together
with the extensive demonstration of the Abhidhamma theory, Kittiwuttho utilised his
attractiveness as a young and skilful speaker to induce people to trust him. Because of
these acts, Prayut criticised Kittiwuttho for not using his own satipahnä but instead
uncritically following the atthakathä teachers82.
Although Prayut’s criticisms against Kittiwuttho stood up to reason, perhaps
Prayut had not studied scriptures as Kittiwuttho had done. The reason for Prayut
accepting Buddhadasa was not only out of respect for Buddhadasa as an authority on
interpretation, but also because he recognised the practicality of empty mind for
overcoming suffering. Prayut wrote that he studied Buddhism as a chao ban (villager or
ordinary commoner), for whatever made his suffering lighter and his pannä (insight and
understanding) increase, no matter whether the teaching originated from the Mahäyäna or
Theraväda, without “being deluded” by the Abhidhammapitaka2. This was the same way
Buddhadasa developed his thought. Such an impression by Prayut stands for an
acceptance of Buddhadasa’s unfamiliar concept of empty mind in contemporary
Thailand as more authentic than traditional Theravada scholasticism of the
Abhidhamma.

“Khamhuno” versus Wai

Next, Pun introduced two articles by “Khamhuno”, who criticised empty mind
and published in Sayam rat weekly magazine, which was run by Kukrit Pramoj.

81
Pun, “Maihet”, Kittiwuttho, “Ruang chit wang nok phra praipidok . . . ”, p. 131.
82
Prayut, “Samnao chotmai thung kittiwuttho phikkhu”, p. 134.
83
Prayut, “Samnao chotmai thung kittiwuttho phikkhu”, p. 135.
173
According to Pun, some people misunderstood that “Khamhuno” was Kukrit himself84,
but in fact the name was a pseudonym of Chamrat Duangthisan85. Pun explained that
Khamhuno used to be a monk at Wat Phichaiyat in Bangkok, he passed the seventh
grade of the Pali ecclesiastical examination, but by the time of the discussion, he had
already disrobed and was working as a columnist on Buddhism86. In the book Arai thuk,
arai phit Pun collected Kittiwuttho’s “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’” (A farmer with ‘empty
mind’)8, and “Tua ku lae khong ku” (Me and mine)88. In both of these articles,
Khamhuno elaborated the arguments of Kukrit, his employer, who criticised the
propagation of empty mind and Jokuttara dhamma, and backed this up with his higher Pali
qualification than Buddhadasa.
In the first article, which is especially important Khamhuno’s aim was to
connect the concept of empty mind with communism. Khamhuno argued that in
Buddhism there are two levels of teaching: the level of empty mind and the level of
non-empty mind, namely lokuttara dhamma and lokiya dhamma. At one level, he wrote that
the Buddha taught, for example to the pancavaggiya (the five ascetics who first
accompanied Gotama) in the Dhammacakkapavattana sutta, not to be attached to anything,
such as wife, children, fortune, but rather encouraged them to feel bored with those and
leave them alone (ploi wang) . On the other hand, Khamhuno wrote,
The Buddha taught ordinary people to be attached to their family, to society,
eventually to the nation. In other words, everyone has a responsibility as a member
of society, [so that they] cannot work as a person with ‘empty mind’. ... In life to
survive ( kan-tham-ma-ha-kin), if [they} want to become wealthy, [they] have to be
honest, be diligent, know [how to] guard and protect [themselves], plant rice in the
field, and plant vegetables and fruits in the garden. So, they have to have a sense
of the self as an owner. [They do] not plant with the power of the isolated ‘empty
mind’, [which makes them] say ‘This rice belongs to the government, this rice
field is not mine, but a collective field’90.

He pointed out that in worldly society having a sense of ownership generates better
results rather than considering oneself as a common owner, therefore the Buddha taught

84 Pun Congprasoet, “Maihet” (An endnote), Khamhuno, “Tua ku lae khong ku” (Me and mine),
Pun,Arai thuk, arai phit, p. 150.
85 Chamrat confirmed that the pseudonym “Khamhuno” was his (Chamrat Duangthisan, interview,
Bangkok, 31 July 1998).
86 Pun Congprasoet, “Maihet”, Khamhuno, “Tua ku lae khong ku” (Me and mine), p. 150.
87 Khamhuno, “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’” (A farmer with empty mind) (Originally published in
Sayam rat sapda wichan, 18 October 1964), Pun,Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 139 - 144.
88 Khamhuno, “Tua ku lae khong ku” (Originally published in Sayam rat sapda wichan, 29
November 1964), Pun,Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 145 - 149.
89 Khamhuno, “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’”, pp. 141 - 142.
90
Khamhuno, “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’”, p. 142.
174
the mundane level of teaching, which does not speak against those who have the
defilement of the sense of ownership. Khamhuno concluded that the system of
collective farming and communes in communism were in vain because they tried to
make farmers be persons with empty mind, who have no sense of being an owner91.
This essay of Khamhuno developed Kukrit’s point of disagreement with
Buddhadasa: the incompatibility of empty mind and lokuttara dhamma for lay people, he
purposefully connected them with communism. As Pun rephrased it, the argument of
Khamhuno implied that the teaching of empty mind was a vehicle that brings
communism into Thailand, and the teacher of empty mind, Buddhadasa, was
propagating communism so the government should quickly eradicate him92. Even
though Khamhuno provided no supporting evidence for Buddhadasa’s being a
communist, those articles contributed to suspicions about Buddhadasa’s political and
ideological intentions.
Khamhuno even made fun of empty mind, which is freed from a sense of me
and mine, by saying,
If someone picked up a pen which fell from the bag of a person who is thinking to
become ‘empty mind’, and asks ‘Whose pen is this?’; then, immediately there
would be a voice in reply with upädäna, ‘M ine’93.

These statements of Khamhuno suggest that his essays were written in order to
discredit the concept of empty mind in his readers. Even without a rational argument,
facile yet catchy impressions can have a very important impact in the public sphere of
Thailand.
Consequently, reactions to Khamhuno were also emotional. Pun mocked
Khamhuno, who had studied as a monk, as follows:
He is recently holding a motto, ‘work is money, money as work creates happiness’.
Thus, the mind of ‘Khamhuno’ cannot be empty, and has no way of understanding
‘empty mind’ at all. He used to stretch himself out in a temple for a long time in
the way of ‘empty mind’. He had no need to work for survival, but [just] relied on
the people’s support. When he studied higher puriyatti (scriptural studies), his mind
started to be disquieted, thus he had to escape from the state of a renunciate to be a
lay man. ... [After he] disrobed, he writes essays that destroy the most important
teaching of Buddhism, again for the purpose of survival, or for pleasing his
employer (chao nai) who also hates sunnata.

91 Khamhuno, “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’”, p. 144.

92 Pun, “Maihet”, Khamhuno, “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’”, p. 144.
93 Khamhuno, “Tua ku lae khong ku”, p. 146.
94 Pun, “Maihet”, Khamhuno, “Tua ku lae khong ku”, p. 150.
175
 Pun also published a letter from “Wai”, who opposed Khamhuno strongly95.

Claiming himself as “a farmer with empty mind in Songkhla province”, Wai talked

about his own experience as follows:

I am a farmer who has been closely associated with rice planting until becoming
an adult. I think that rice planting is not an easy task at all. But, because I had a
kind of empty mind, it helped me to do that task. 'Khamhuno’ would not have
grown rice, because he used to be a monk who for a long time begged from
villagers to eat. [He did] not have to do any work, [but] ate and slept comfortably,
so he does not know anything at all. Empty mind is, therefore a foundation of life.
If life is always repressed by upadäna, life is beyond enduring9 .

Wai concluded his letter with a strong tone,

Actually, at the level of [your] mind, when you [Khamhuno] do not understand
Ven. Buddhadasa clearly enough, is it appropriate for you to rush to state that
Buddhadasa talks about impossible things? ... Your level of knowledge of dhamma
is still as far away from Buddhadasa as sky and earth. Please know yourself
somehow, and do not follow your employer to become crazy together97.

These quotations indicate that discussions in the mid-twentieth-century

Buddhist public sphere of Thailand were not always rational or supported by evidence.

There were rational arguments as Buddhadasa demonstrated, but there were also many

manipulations, exaggerations, speculations, and jokes. Evidence or facts were not so

important as the general impressions that people received. Those who went on to the

stage of public discussion tended to argue down their discussant even writh mere
quibbles. Therefore, extensive campaigns, which were often supported by generous

funding and respected people, were very influential.

However, whatever tactics were applied, as long as there was no official

intervention from the government or the Sangha, it was hardly ever possible for a single

opinion to eradicate others from the public sphere. The only possible victory in the

public sphere was for some opinions to gain hegemony over competing ones. In order

for Buddhadasa’s teaching to gain hegemony, Pun collected and publicized the opinions

of Buddhadasa’s ordinary followers, who attempted to make counter-arguments to his

9:5 Wai, “Samnao chomai thung ‘Khamhuno’” (The draft of a letter to ‘Khamhuno’) (The letter is
dated 25 January 1965), Pun,Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 151 - 162.
96 Wai, “Samnao chomai thung ‘Khamhuno’”, p. 158.
97 Wai, “Samnao chomai thung ‘Khamhuno’”, pp. 161 - 162. Although in the book^lraz thuk, arai
phit Khamhuno is given the role of an opponent of Buddhadasa, later he changed his attitude
towards Buddhadasa, perhaps following the change in Kukrit. In my interview with Khamhuno on
31 July 1998, he explained that Buddhadasa had only the third grade of Pali qualification, but he was
competent in English and intellectual inquiry, and his teaching was “scientific Buddhism” without
superstitions. He said that Buddhadasa learnt the ideology of sunnatä from Mahäyäna Buddhism, but it
does not contradict Theraväda Buddhism (Chamrat Duangthisan [Khamhuno], interview).
176
opponents. Also, by contrasting the opposite sides of the argument, Pun appealed to
people’s rationality to distinguish the right view.

The other approach that Pun applied was to introduce the opinion of a socially

respected lay disciple of Buddhadasa, Sanya Dhammasakdi.

Sanya Dhammasakdi

Sanya had been a judge, elected to the presidency of the Buddhist Association

of Thailand many times, appointed by the King to be interim Prime Minister after the 14

October 1973 uprising, and Chair of the Privy Council in 197598. Pun reprinted a public

lecture by Sanya when he had given his own example of how empty mind helped him in

his highly responsible tasks. In a public lecture, “The Buddha dhamma and work life”,

which he gave at the Chachoengsao branch of the Buddhist Association of Thailand on

9 September 1972, Sanya said,
I myself have invited [empty mind] many times. I used it because there were
strong tensions in some meetings which had intense conflicts. If [the meeting]
resolved this, one group would listen; if [it] resolved that, the other group would
listen. [In such a case] how could we seek the best way out? I was the chair of
such a meeting. I took these as an exercise, simply switched off, and made my
mind empty from considering anyone, but only considered reason. When [I found
out that a] reasonable [decision] should be this, no matter who was going to be
angry, hate it, or not listen to it, they were not an issue to consider. Then it went
well. Namely, we only held reasons, but were not considering people as “us” or
“them”99.

About the teaching of empty mind and lokuttara dhamma, which had been criticised as

inappropriate for the laity, Sanya affirmed,

It is really possible to have anatta (non-self) and empty mind. These principles of
the dhamma are most useful [teachings] for us. When a tension arose, I myself
confess that I have been benefited by it very much100.

If we do not attach to anything as me and mine, we can overcome everything.

Even death, which we are afraid of the most in the world, or the things that we
regard as the most important in the world do not have meaning. Property, status,
children, wife, and honour are all of the characteristic of sämanna lakkhana [general
characteristics of what is formed, i.e. impermanence, non-self, and suffering]. This
is the peak of the dhamma in my knowledge and understanding. The Buddha dhamma
can help while we are working in this way, or for us to know that level, not just by
making merit, respecting monks, dedicating robes on the occasion of kathin and
pha pa. Although keeping five or eight precepts is good, if [we] would like the
Buddha dhamma to help us in our way of living and in our work, we have to study

98 Suksanti Chirachariyawet (ed.), 7 rop achan sanya (Seventh twelve-year cycle [i.e., eighty-four
years] of Achan Sanya) (Bangkok: Mulanithi nitthisat, Mahawitthayalai thammasat, 1991), pp. 181 -
182.
99 Sanya Thammasak (Dhammasakdi), “Phuttha-tham kap chiwit kan-ngan” (The Buddha dhamma
and work life), Pun, Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 166 - 167.
100 Sanya Thammasak, “Phuttha-tham kap chiwit kan-ngan”, p. 168.
177
 Buddhism to really reach its core (lokuttara dhamma). Then, [we] will think about it
and test whether it is true or not. The Buddha did not teach us to believe in anyone,
but taught people to examine whether something is true or not101.

These remarks by Sanya indicated that empty mind was actually practised, and
lokuttara dhamma was considered as beneficial for worldly life by a lay Buddhist in
Thailand, based on the way he had understood it through Buddhadasa’s teaching.
Sanya’s son, Chakradharm Dhammasakdi, also said in his interview that Sanya
practised empty mind while he was the interim Prime Minister after the 14 October
1973 uprising. After the military dictators were expelled by the people, a great many
demands came forth, directed at the successor government. Chakradharm said that
Sanya used to be respected as a good person, but during that time he received a lot of
criticism which he had never had before. Sanya often told his family that he could not
take on such a heavy task without the practice of empty mind102. In Pun’s book, Sanya’s
story functioned as a good support of the validity of Buddhadasa’s teachings on empty
mind and lokuttara dhamma, no matter what criticisms were given about those unfamiliar
concepts.

Pun’s understanding of the debates on empty mind

Pun, as a propagator of Buddhadasa’s teachings, concluded the discussion
forum by contrasting the problems that he perceived in Buddhadasa’s opponents’
statements and Buddhadasa’s contribution to the Thai people. Pun regarded that the
purpose of Buddhism was not to argue over which teaching is good to follow, but
instead to teach people to be able to overcome their sufferings by restricting greed,
anger, and delusion. Therefore, as Buddhadasa presented it, Pun denied teachings which
do not teach the overcoming of suffering, as not taught by the Buddha and it was not
necessary to be interested in them. By following Buddhadasa’s ideas, Pun insisted that
the teaching of sunnatä or empty mind, which teaches one to overcome suffering, is
unique to Buddhism, whereas the lokiya dhamma is also taught in all the other religions.
He thus criticised Buddhadasa’s opponents who promoted only lokiya dhamma but
rejected lokuttara dhamma as follows:

101 Sanya Thammasak, “Phuttha-tham kap chiwit kan-ngan”, p. 169. The bracketed portion was
given by Sanya.
02 Chakradharm Dhammasakdi (Chakkatham Thammasak), interview, Bangkok, 12 October 1998.
178
 ... it is natural for those who do not have pannä (insight) or who are not
courageous enough to use their own pannä to understand the highest teaching of
the Buddha. [They] do not have to proudly present themselves as a teacher of
scriptures, a mahaparian (a person with Pali qualification), or a teacher of the
Abhidhamma. [These people] are not different from those who are employed to
keep cows, [but] have never tasted milk103.

Pun also criticised what they had done,

If teachers, the kind who tend to make people veer off from Buddhism, stop
arguing and competing about what is unjust in terms of reason, it is considered to
be a kind of merit. Because of [preventing other people exploring the dhamma] they
can make themselves people who interfere in other people’s business from which
they themselves get no return. When Thai people started to be interested in sunnatä
and empty mind, they used rhetorical speech to make people doubtful and not
believe in sunnatä further. The more someone has chances to explain the dhamma on
the radio or in the newspaper, the more puffed up they are as great philosophers. I
[Pun] thus collected their thoughts to present here in order for readers to examine
[them]104.

In contrast to these opponents, Pun explained the contribution of Buddhadasa’s

dhamma propagation. Pun understood that Buddhadasa was highly respected by

intellectuals, was even invited by the Ministry of Justice to give religious instructions

over ten years, for the following reasons:

He [Ven. Buddhadasa] is the first monk in Thailand who introduced and widely
propagated many teachings of the sacca dhamma (truth) that have been buried in the
Tipitaka. Those who achieved even the ninth level [i.e. the highest level] of the Pali
qualification or teachers of the Abhidhamma had never discovered nor understood
them. ... He [Ven. Buddhadasa] does not have a high level of Pali qualification
and his ecclesiastical title is only at the level of Phra Ratcha Khana, because his
purpose of ordination was not to serve the ecclesiastical administration, but to
preach to the people. ... Thus, he secludes himself in a forest and practises the
way of renunciates by following the teachings of the Buddha. He still translated
from the [Pali] Tipitaka into Thai, and codified a number of books, such as
Khumsap chak phra ot (A treasure trove from the Buddha’s words), Phuttha
prawat chak phra ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words), and Ariya sat chak
phra ot (Four noble truths from the Buddha’s words). Who could have ever done
like these works, or done as well as him? Even though there are official [Thai
translations of] the Tipitaka, almost no Thai people can understand what it means. It
is because they just put Thai words into Pali style sentences. ... Mahaparian (Pali
qualification holders) or Abhidhammists have never read the Buddha’s own words
in the Suttapitaka, and do not know the truth. Thus, they cannot grasp the principle
of Buddhism105.

Pun’s impressions of Buddhadasa can stand for the aspects of Buddhadasa’s

teachings that were so appealing for Thai intellectuals. What Pun called the truth that

Buddhadasa revealed was the lokuttara dhamma that teaches people the way to overcome

suffering. One of the most central themes of Buddhadasa’s works was to indicate,

among many other complex and detailed theories about the states of mind or paths for

103 Pun Chongprasoet, “Patchima likhit” (Epilogue), Pun, Arai thuk, arai phit, p. 178.
104 Pun, “Patchima likhit”, p. 179.
105 Pun, “Patchima likhit”, pp. 181 - 182.
179
liberation, the messages in the Tipitaka that can teach people to reduce suffering.
According to Buddhadasa’s teaching, all those detailed ideas in the Tipitaka make sense
when they are viewed as something that supports the aim of overcoming suffering.
Popularising the ideas of the lokuttara dhamma was Buddhadasa’s contribution to the Thai
people.
However, Buddhadasa’s propagation of the lokuttara dhamma was controversial
in the Buddhist public sphere of Thailand. As a summary of all the above Thai
Buddhists’ discussions about the lokuttara dhamma and the concept of empty mind, there
were at least three points for Buddhadasa’s teaching to be controversial.
The first point was whether the lokuttara or supermundane level of teaching is
relevant for laity or not. If the source of suffering is understood as attachment, everyone,
regardless of their ordained status, can remind themselves not to attach to the self,
which is only a misperception of the compound of aggregates, and to the things that do
not belong to them as their possessions. What Buddhadasa called empty mind, or the
state of mind that is free from the sense of attachment, was considered by his lay
followers to be useful in worldly life, which was always associated with greediness,
anger, and delusion. Buddhadasa promoted having such an empty state of mind as a
temporary liberation, or state of nibbäna, which is also attainable for lay people as well as
renunciates. In fact, the Tipiuika gives many examples of lay people who accomplished
the path of sainthood, and thus the lokuttara dhamma is also open for lay Buddhists.
However, the path for liberation has been considered as too difficult for ordinary people
in Thailand. They perceived that it is such a highly revered path, even for those forest
monks who keep themselves away from worldly pleasures and force themselves to do
ascetic practices in order not to indulge in transient happiness, which is not tme
liberation. With this basic presumption, people found it difficult to imagine that they,
who were satisfied with worldly happiness, could follow the path of the saint in their
daily life. Therefore, in this context, Buddhadasa’s propagation of the lokuttara dhamma

was viewed by some as an authentic teaching of the Buddha, and by others as a teaching
irrelevant for ordinary people106.

106 In the mid-1980s Buddhadasa’s propagation of the lokuttara dhamma and empty mind was further
challenged by Samana (Phra) Phothirak, the leader of the Santi Asoke, a new Buddhist group that
separated from the Thai Sangha. Phothirak criticised the elite followers of Buddhadasa, as usually
180
 The second point was whether the concept of empty mind belongs to the
Theraväda or the Mahäyäna. Buddhadasa’s teaching of emptiness or proposal to practise
empty mind was also regarded as a teaching for people not to endure suffering in the
world. From this point of view, it is not important to Buddhadasa nor to those who
support his teachings, where the teaching of emptiness originated whether it was
Mahäyäna or Theraväda, as long as it helped them to overcome suffering. As a matter of
fact, the concept of emptiness actually exists in Theraväda scriptures, this fact was a
strong support for Buddhadasa and his followers to promote the practice of empty mind.
However, at the same time, because of the fact that the concept was unfamiliar in
traditional Theraväda commentaries, but was emphasised in the Mahäyäna, Buddhadasa’s
proposal of empty mind could be attacked as unorthodox.
The third point was that opponents of Buddhadasa created controversies about
him through their written and oral debates. Along with Buddhadasa’s and Thammathat’s
propagation and dissemination of their own ideas, these controversies in themselves
served to expand and enrich the Buddhist public sphere in Thailand. Even though
Buddhadasa’s teaching of the lokuttara dhamma and empty mind were unfamiliar to Thai
Buddhists in general, he had reasonable grounds in support of his ideas so that they
were accepted by intellectuals in their daily practice. His opponents manipulated their
interpretations, for example by claiming that sunnatä does not exist in Theraväda Tipitaka,

and by relating the practice of mind empty of “me” and “mine” to the communist policy
of co-operative agriculture instead of private enterprise. They also used other methods
to make people trust or be attracted to them rather than Buddhadasa, such as the fluent
presentation of material from a Pali commentary, jokes, and citing a higher Pali
qualification. Whatever the evidence for the arguments, ordinary people who could not

being absorbed in greediness in luxurious living, but who only apply the method of empty mind
when they feel sufferings by letting go attachment. From the perspective of an ordinary commoner,
Phothirak proposed what he considered more practical teachings for people in general. For example,
the Santi Asoke is known for their strict adherence to moral precepts, which they think more realistic
for people to train themselves, and by establishing a Buddhist community of common ownership
which was supported by the members’ moral precepts. However, Phothirak wrote that he truly
respected Buddhadasa, but he critically examined Buddhadasa’s teachings in order to help people in
worldly society (Satcha Wimuttinan (edited from a public lecture of Phra Phothirak), Panha
sangkhom thi kae mai dai phro kansuksa phutthasasana phit phlat (Social problems that cannot be
solved because of wrong education in Buddhism) (Bangkok: Rongphim mulanithi thamma santi,
1985)). Such views of Phothirak were confirmed by him in my interview with him on 6 May 1999.

181
follow the arguments in the Pali Tipitaka or its commentaries by themselves only took on
a certain incredulity towards Buddhadasa’s teachings. In these ways suspicious images
of Buddhadasa as unorthodox and radical were generated and transmitted in the
Buddhist public sphere in the 1960s and 1970s.

182
Chapter VI Abhidhamma groups in contemporary Thailand and their
conflict with Buddhadasa

In the mid-twentieth century, when Thai Buddhists were pursuing deeper

understanding in the doctrines and ways of Buddhist practice, Buddhadasa developed
his views on emptiness possibly through the influence of Mahäyäna Buddhism. As I have
examined in the previous chapter, empty mind became polemical in the Buddhist public
sphere of Thailand, but Buddhadasa considered it a teaching relevant to Theraväda

Buddhists. For Buddhadasa, it was not only because the concept of emptiness actually
existed in Theraväda scriptures, but also because he understood that any ideas that would
be useful for overcoming suffering should be incorporated into practice no matter what
their origin, Theraväda, Mahäyäna, or even other religions.
At about the same time that Buddhadasa was developing his ideas on emptiness,
other groups of Thai Buddhists pursued in different ways their intellectual and religious
interests to go beyond the basic level of Thai ecclesiastical education. One of the most
remarkable paths was the study of the Abhidhamma, the highly refined definitions and
exegesis of Buddhist doctrines that had been developed in the Theraväda school. Some
groups based closely on the Abhidhamma became keen opponents of Buddhadasa, and
this conflict stood out as one of the most striking doctrinal confrontations in the
Buddhist public sphere in mid-twentieth-century Thailand. In order to understand
Buddhadasa’s position in the context of contemporary Thai Buddhism, I am going to
explore two points in this chapter.
First, I will present a history of contemporary Abhidhamma studies in Thailand.
Compared to the new Buddhist groups which arose in the 1970s, very little work in the
existing sociological studies of Thai Buddhism has dealt with the popularisation of
Abhidhamma studies in Thailand before the 1960s. Gabaude, in his study on
Buddhadasa, has a chapter on the Abhidhamma, where he mainly analyses
Buddhadasa’s interpretation of the classical theory of the Abhidhamma1. In other
chapters on Buddhadasa’s hermeneutic of conditioned arising, rebirth, and spirits,

1 Louis Gabaude, “Le langage scolastique: l’Abhidhamma”, Une hermeneutique bouddhique

contemporaine de Thailande: Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Paris: Ecole Franchise d’Extreme-Orient, 1988),

183
Gabaude contrasted the ideas of Buddhadasa and those of his Abhidhamma opponents.
He also gave biographical information about these groups; however, his study lacked a
comprehensive historical picture of the Abhidhamma groups in contemporary Thailand*2.
Rather, those whom he called “Abhidhammists” did not comprise a monolithic unity. In
relation to the propagation of vipassanä meditation, Tambiah has also mentioned Phra
Phimolatham (At Asapho), an influential Mahanikai Order elder, who introduced
vipassanä together with Abhidhamma studies from Burma3. However, the lone activities
of Phra Phimolatham did not account for or represent the growing popularity of
Abhidhamma studies and vipassanä as new phenomena in Thailand. In fact, there were
more popular teachers and more extensive demands made on them.
Second, I will examine the ideological conflict initiated by Buddhadasa’s
controversial lecture on the Abhidhamma in 1965, which invited critical retorts from
Abhidhamma groups. Gabaude indicated that the distinct positions of Buddhadasa and
the Abhidhamma groups were respectively interpretative and scholastic, rationalist and
supematuralist4. Jackson also examined similar points as Gabaude, such as Buddha­
dasa’s dhamma-language interpretation of rebirth and supernatural beings5. However,
both of their studies placed emphasis on Buddhadasa’s characteristic interpretation but
did not pay much attention to the controversial nature of his Abhidhamma opponents.
Even though Buddhadasa incorporated various foreign elements which had inspired him
in his teachings, this does not always mean that criticism of him from the Abhidhamma
groups was based on some orthodoxy of Thai Buddhism. It is necessary to study the
arguments of his opponents as critically as those of Buddhadasa.

pp. 126 - 174.

Gabaude, “Le langage classique: la production conditionnee”, pp. 175 - 241; “Le langage
magique: la prolongation de la vie”, pp. 242 - 279; and “Le langage animiste: les esprits”, pp. 279 -
344.
3 S. J. Tambiah, “The center-periphery dialectic: the Mahathat and Bovonnivet sponsorship of
meditation compared”, The Buddhist saints of the forest and the cult o f amulets (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 183 - 199. He presented Phra Phimolatham’s propagation of
vipassanä as an element of ascetic practice that the Mahanikai Order needed politically as a
countermeasure to the more indigenous ways of the ascetic forest monks, many of whom were
eventually integrated into the Thammayut Order. Also, the administration effort for vipassanä
propagation which expands from the capital to the provinces, and the spontaneous faith of urban
intellectuals in forest monks were contrasted by him.
4 Gabaude, “Le langage scolastique: l ’Abhidhamma”, and “Le langage animiste: les esprits”.
5 Peter Jackson, Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker for the modern world (Bangkok: The Siam Society
under Royal Patronage, 1988), pp. 125 - 133.
184
 By means of these two points, this chapter will present the position of
Buddhadasa relative to others in the contemporary Thai Buddhist public sphere. It is not
possible to understand Buddhadasa’s thought simply by studying the content of his
works. The history and relationship between Buddhadasa and his Abhidhamma
opponents will also serve to demonstrate an important dimension of the doctrinal
development of Thai Buddhism in the twentieth century.

1. Abhidhamma studies and their history in contemporary Thailand

The Abhidhamma, or Abhidhammapitaka, is one of the three baskets of the

Tipitaka, together with the Suttapitaka (teachings of the Buddha) and the Vinayapitaka

(monastic discipline). Compared with the contents of the other two collections which
were recited in the first and second councils, the development of the Abhidhamma came
later. Two or three hundred years after the death of the Buddha, his followers seem to
have developed precise definitions and exegesis of the teachings preserved in the other
collections, and they analysed the factors of experience (Pali: cetasika) and their
interactions into a complex classification. In some schools this analysis evolved into the
third collection, the Abhidhamma. However, the Buddhist communities were far from
agreement about doctrine, especially about these classifications, and various
Abhidhamma texts and collections came into existence belonging to different schools,
such as Theraväda and Sarvästiväda. Some schools did not even have an Abhidhamma
collection. Even though the Abhidhamma came later and its forms in different schools
do not agree with each other, the content of the Abhidhamma, but not its form, has been
considered as attributable to the Buddha6. In other words, even from its origin, the
Abhidhamma was contentious and probably had a polemical function in its insistence
on orthodoxy.
Although Thai Buddhists also inherited the Theraväda Abhidhamma as a part of
the Tipitaka, the popularity of Abhidhamma studies is a recent phenomenon in Thailand.
Contemporary Thai Buddhists acquired methods to study the Abhidhamma through

6 Collett Cox, “Buddhism, Äbhidharmika schools o f ’, Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of
philosophy (London and N ew York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 53 - 58.

185
monks from Burma, where, among all ethnic groups belonging to the Theravada school,
Abhidhamma studies have been most emphasised. In Burma, as well as in Sri Lanka,
students have mostly relied on a reworking of the material that summarised the
teachings of the Abhidhammapigika, of which the detailed classifications and discussions
about the process of perception, consciousness and other Buddhist psychology are
difficult. The summary is the Abhidhammatthasangaha, or “compendium of philosophy”. It
was written by Anuruddha, who was bom in South India and lived in Sii Lanka earlier
than the twelfth- but later than the eighth-century C.E. Saddhatissa has portrayed the
Abhidhammatthasangaha as, “For the Burmese or Sinhalese student who begins to study
Abhidhamma, this book is first committed to memory. Trying to study the Abhidhamma
without mastering this book is like trying to construct a house without a suitable
foundation”7. Later Buddhists have been studying the Abhidhamma with the assistance
of the Abhidhammatthasangaha and its sub-commentaries, especially the
Abhidhammatthavibhävini-dkä, written by Sumangala at the time of King Paräkramabähu (1153
- 1186)8. In Burma and Sri Lanka, Abhidhamma studies are closely linked with
monastic training in vipassanä meditation9.

However, in Thailand, according to Phra Sikhamphirayan (Thawan; 1920- ), a

principle teacher at the Abhidhamma school at Wat Rakhang, Khana 7, some portions of
the Abhidhammapitaka, its atthakathä and Abhidhamma teachers were lost when Ayutthaya
was surrendered by Burma, although the Suttapitaka and Vinayapitaka survived. He also
said that King Rama I attempted to restore the Abhidhamma when he went on an
expedition to Northern Thailand and Luang Praban, but his efforts were not totally
successful10.

7 Hammalawa Saddhatissa, “Introduction: the Abhidhammatthasangaha”, Hammalawa Saddhatissa

(ed.), The Abhidhammatthasangaha of Bhadantäcariya Anurudda and the Abhidhammatthavibhävinl-tikä o f
Bhandantäcariya SumangaJasämi (Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 1989), p. xv.
8 Hammalawa Saddhatissa, “Introduction: the Abhidhammatthasangaha”, p. xix.
9 I am grateful for this comment from a meditation practitioner, whom I asked how the highly
philosophical Abhidhamma studies relate to vipassanä meditation. It helped me to understand why
Abhidhamma studies are important in some forms of Buddhism. The same point is also indicated by
Collett Cox, who wrote “Abhidharma enables the practitioner to discriminate those aspects of
experience that are defiling and so lead to suffering from those that are virtuous; through this
discriminating insight, one can remove the defilements, cultivate virtue, and thereby emulate the
Buddha and attain enlightenment” (Cox, “Buddhism, Äbhidharmika schools o f ’, p. 54).
10 Phra Sikhamphirayan, interview, Bangkok, 28 December 1998. This information needs to be
186
 In twentieth century Thailand, the study of the Abhidhamma has also been

included in the curricula of ecclesiastical examinations for nak tham (grade 3 - 1 ) and

Pali (level 3 - 9). Studies of the Abhidhamma are included in the eighth and/or ninth,

that is the highest, levels of the Pali examination*11. For the ninth level Pali exam,

candidates are asked to translate from the Pali Abhidhammatthavibhävini-tikä into Thai. This

text is an expanded commentary on the Abhidhammatthasangaha, which reorganised,

summarised and explained material from the seven books of the Abhidhammapitaka. If the

existing curricula of ecclesiastical examinations are followed12, those who study the

Abhidhamma would be limited in number, because it is only studied in the most

advanced levels of the Pali examinations, and this level has traditionally been highly

respected. In this way, people were required to be experts in Pali in order to leam the

Abhidhamma, it was not designed for popular consumption.

Apart from the ecclesiastical examination system, there seems to have been a

more popularised form of Abhidhamma study, by which people could study it in Thai.

According to Buddhadasa, in around 1921, when he was fifteen years old, he attended

an Abhidhamma class at a temple in his neighbourhood, Wat Thammabucha, Phumriang,

Chaiya . However, little is known about those local Abhidhamma studies in early

twentieth century Thailand, and they were likely to have been much less influential than

supported by further historical surveys.

11 A ninth level Pali qualification holder, Sathianphon Wannaphok, said in an interview that the
Abhidhamma is asked about in the eighth and ninth levels (Bangkok, 30 April 1999), but two other
ninth level qualification holders, Suchip Phunyanuphap (interview, Bangkok, 10 March 1999) and
Siri Phetchai (interview, Bangkok, 11 March 1999), said that the Abhidhamma is only examined in
the ninth level. According to Ishii’s list of canonical texts for each level of the Pali examination, the
eighth level requires translation from the Samantapäsädika (a sub-commentary on the Vinayapitaka)
from Thai to Pali, and from the Visuddhimagga from Pali to Thai (Yoneo Ishii, Sangha, state, and
society: Thai Buddhism in history (Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press, 1986), p. 95). The
Visuddhimagga is a para-canonical text, which is abstracted from the entire Tipitaka, rather than an
atüiakathä which depends on a base text. It includes Abhidhamma material also. Perhaps the eighth
level sometimes requires translation of sections relating to the Abhidhamma in the Visuddhimagga.
12 A textbook on the Abhidhamma, Chula aphithammatthasangkhaha (Culä abhidhammatthasangaha),
written by Phra Thipparinya, was approved in 1951 for use in the third, or the lowest, grade nak
tham, however, it was not used for a long time (Anuson ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop phra
thipparinya (Commemoration of Phra Thipparinya’s cremation) (21 May 1977), p. 14; Kittiwuttho
Bhikkhu, interview, Chonburi, 29 April 1999).
13 Phutthathat phikkhu, Aphitham khu arai? (What is abhidhamma?) (Bangkok: Samnak nangsu
thammabucha khong khana phoei phrae witthi kan damnoen chiwit an prasoet, 1978), pp. 5 - 6 .
Buddhadasa said that people were excited to talk about kämävacara (the world of pleasure) or
rüpävacara (world of form), even though they did not know the meaning well, but there were instead
many unfamiliar concepts. Buddhadasa seems not to have become involved in the Abhidhamma too
deeply, as he said that he did not know how to use it.
187
either Buddhadasa himself or Phra Phatthanta Wilasa, a Burmese monk teacher of the
Abhidhamma.
The arrival of Phra Phatthanta Wilasa (1897 - 1936?) was an important
beginning of the popularisation of Abhidhamma studies in Thailand14. Phatthanta seems
to have been an ethnic Burmese of Pyinmana province, which is situated in the southern
end of Upper Burma13. He studied the Tipitaka from the time he was ordained as a novice
at the age of twelve, and he continued his study as a monk in Mandalay and Pahkokku
for nine years. After that, he practised vipassanä meditation at the place of U Chan Dun, a
disciple of the renowned Mingun Hsayadaw (1869 - 1954)16. In 1930 Thai gem traders
invited him as a vipassanä teacher to Bo Phloi, Kanchanaburi province in Western
Thailand, and in 1931 a group of lay supporters of Wat Prok, which is known as a
Burmese temple in Bangkok, invited him to stay there17.
The students of Phatthanta became the first generation of popular Thai
Abhidhamma teachers. Since Phatthanta could not speak Thai very fluently, some Thai
intellectuals, such as Luang Praphanphatthanakan and Luang Thepdarunanusit (Thawi
Thammathat; the ninth level Pali qualification holder during the sixth reign), helped by
translating Burmese or Pali into Thai when he taught his Thai students18. He seems to
have become quite famous among eager Buddhists in search of a good teacher. Even
Phraya Lapphlithammaprakhan, an important friend and supporter of Buddhadasa,

14 Phra Phadungsulakkarit (A thayok of Wat Prok), “Prawat phra phatthanta wilasa” (A history of
Phra Phatthanta Wilasa), Phra Phatthanta Wilasa, Thamma bet talet (Small piece of the dhamma)
(Bangkok: Samakhom sun khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana, 1982), pp. 6 - 7 . The name of this
Burmese monk, which I transcribe here in accordance with Thai pronunciation, can also be
transcribed using Pali spelling as Bhaddanta Viläsa. Although in Pali Bhaddanta means “venerable” or
“reverend”, and it is used to refer to a monk, my impression is that Thai people seem to use it as the
name of the Burmese monk (T. W. Rhys Davids and William Stede (eds.), “Bhadanta (Bhaddanta)”,
Pali-English dictionary (Oxford: The Pali Text Society), pp. 497 - 498).
13 Because of his parents’ names (U Kyaung and Daw Hla Win) and the place of his birth, he was
most likely an ethnic Burmese. I thank Associate Professor Kei Nemoto for his advice on the ethnic
and geographical situation in Burma, as well as the possible English spellings of Burmese names,
which were found in Thai materials.
16 Mingun Hsayadaw is respected as the preceptor of the famous meditation teacher, Mahasi
Hsayadaw. For Mingun Hsayadaw’s biography and work, see Madhav M. Deshpande,
Milindapanhä-atthakathä by Thaton Mingun Zatawun Sayadaw alias U Narada Mahathera (transcribed
and edited) (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for
Advanced Buddhist Studies, 1999).
17 Phra Phadungsulakkarit, “Prawat phra phatthanta wilasa”, pp. 5 - 8 .
18 Phra Phadungsulakkarit, “Prawat phra phatthanta wilasa”, p. 7; Siri Phetchai (The head of the
academic division, Association for the Research Centre of Buddhism {Samakhom sun khonkwa
thang phra phutthasasana)), interview, Bangkok, 11 March 1999.
188
introduced Buddhadasa to study with Phatthanta19. However, the life of Phatthanta
ended with what was rumoured to be a mysterious murder. Some said that he was
murdered by a villain when he was practising walking meditation at midnight20, and
others said that one morning he was found hanging alone in his kuti but was assumed to
have been murdered by illegal Mon immigrants who lived in the temple and had been
told to leave in order that a meditation hall could be built21. As a biographer wrote that
he stayed in Wat Prok for five years, he seems to have died in 1936 at the age of
thirty-nine“". Although Phatthanta’s instructions on the Abhidhamma and vipassanä

lasted only for a short period, his students succeeded him in his teachings and took an
important role as Abhidhamma and vipassanä teachers. Among them, Naep Mahaniranon
was particularly important.
Ubasika Naep Mahaniranon (1898 - 1983) was bom the daughter of Phraya
Sattayanukun, former governor, or Chao Muang Kanchanaburi23. As a woman in an
earlier generation, she did not have any formal education, and throughout her life she
had difficulties in writing Thai. She had already married and had three sons before she
became seriously interested in meditation practice around thirty. In 1932, Naep was
introduced to Phatthanta by Luang Praphan, who liked to visit many famous monks to
have dhamma conversations. She agreed with his teaching that the dhamma practice was
not thinking, but watching the present ärammana (object of consciousness), without
bringing in the past or the future24. Her understanding improved in a few years, and
Phatthanta told her to take on the role of an Abhidhamma and vipassanä teacher25. In
1944, she opened her first vipassanä school at Wat Rakhang26, and taught with Sai

19 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Anumothana” (Blessing), Khana thammathan lae phu thi khaorop nai
khunnatham khong phraya lapphlithammaprakhan (The Khana Thammathan and a group which
respect the moral principles of Phraya Lapphlithammaprakhan) (ed.), Mahawitthayalai chiwit khong
phutthathat phikkhu, panya nai phutthasasana nikai sen khong khun prachak (A university of life by
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, and Insight in Zen School of Buddhism by Khun Prachak) (A cremation
volume for Phraya Lapphlithammaprakhan, 19 September 1968), p. (6).
20 Siri Phetchai, interview.
21 Wannasit Waithayasewi, interview, Bangkok, 3 May 1999.
22 Phra Phadungsulakkarit, “Prawat phra phatthanta wilasa”, p. 7.
23 “Chiwit lae ngan khong achan naep mahaniranon” (Life and work of Naep Mahaniranon),
Panyasan (Journal of panna), No. 15 (21 September 1983), p. 1.
24 Wannasit, interview.
25 “Chiwit lae ngan khong achan naep mahaniranon”, p. 2.
26 “Chiwit lae ngan khong achan naep mahaniranon”, p. 3. The year might be 1934. Wannasit, who
was one of the closest disciples of Naep, said in an interview that Phatthanta died soon after the
189
Saikasaem, who wrote Aphitham yo (Abhidhamma in summary)27, which seems to have

been one of the first Abhidhamma textbooks written by a contemporary Thai. Naep
• n o
became an important teacher who supervised vipassanä schools in forty-one provinces“ .

At the end of the 1940s, there was an effort to introduce the Abhidhamma and

vipassanä practice from Burma at a high level in the Thai Sangha. In 1948 the then Phra

Thammatrailokachan, who is best known by his later ecclesiastical title, Phra

Phimolatham (At Atsapho; 1903 - 1 9 8 9 )29, then in the Sangha Ministry of

Administration, requested the ambassador of Burma to send Burmese monks with

expertise in the Tipitaka, as well as complete sets of the Tipitaka, the atthakathä

(commentaries), and the tikä (sub-commentaries), which had been transmitted in

Burma' . At his request, two Burmese monks, Ven. Satthamma Chotika Thammachariya

(? - 1966) and Ven. Techintha Thammachariya Thammakathika31 came to Thailand in

1949. Furthermore, in 1952 At sent two monks and a novice with Pali qualifications to

Burma to acquire the method of vipassanä dhura (the task of contemplation) and

ganthadhura (the task o f the books, i.e., of studying the scriptures). When Phra Maha

Chodok Yanasit (ninth level Pali qualification holder; 1918 - 1988), who had studied

vipassanä dhura in Burma, was returning to Thailand in 1953, two Burmese vipassanä

teacher monks, Ven. Phatthanta Atsapha Thera Pathankammathanachariya and Ven.

Inthawansa Thammachariya Kammathanachariya, were also invited to Thailand by At32.

school at Wat Rakhang opened. He also said that Sai Saikasaem, who used to work at the
Department of forestry in Chiang Mai and who could speak Burmese, helped by translating
Phatthanta’s teaching at the school (Wannasit, interview).
27 Wannasit, interview.
90
" “Chiwit lae ngan khong achan naep mahaniranon”, p. 3.
29 At Asapho is most well-known by his second to last ecclesiastical title, Phra Phimolatham. The
title, Phra Phimolatham was given to him on 4 December 1959 and he was known as the holder of
this title until the next elevation to Somdet Phra Phutthachan on 5 December 1985, even though it
was withdrawn from 11 November 1950 to 31 May 1975 for a charge he was innocent of (“Somdet
phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, Maha thera prawat: somdet phra phutthachan (at
atsapha maha thera) (A history of the great elder: Somdet Phra Phutthachan (At Atsapha Maha
Thera)) (Bangkok: Mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai, 1990), pp.120 - 122).
30 In 1950 three sets of scriptures were dedicated by the Buddhist Congress of the Burmese Union
(this is a translation of the term, Sapha kan phutthasasana haeng sahaphap phama, which appears in
a Thai source). One set was sent to Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University at Wat Mahathat,
another to Mahamakut Buddhist University at Wat Bowonniwet, and the other to the Abhidhamma
School at Wat Rakhang (“Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, pp. 116 - 117).
31 Here I gave their names in accordance with Thai pronunciation and transliteration. Thai people
usually call the former Achan Chotika, and the latter Achan Techin. The Pali transliterations of their
names are Saddhamma Jotika Dhammäcariya and Tejinda Dhammäcariya Dhammakathika, respectively.
32 “Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, pp. 118 - 119; “Prawat lae phonngan doi yo:
190
 These Burmese and Thai monks who studied in Burma played an important

role as teachers of both Abhidhamma and vipassanä. The Burmese monk, Chotika, taught

Abhidhamma at Wat Mahathat from 1950 to 1954, and also at Wat Rakhang until he

died in 1968 . Both of these monasteries have a long history, dating from early in the

Bangkok dynasty. Based on Burmese textbooks, Chotika and his disciples established

Abhidhamma textbooks and examinations in Thai, these have nine levels ( Cula

abhidhammika 3, 2, 1; Majjhima abhidhammika 3, 2, 1; and Mahä abhidhammika 3, 2, l ) 34. The

Abhidhamma classes that were started by Chotika still continue up to the present, both

at Wat Mahathat and at Wat Rakhang. The one at Wat Mahathat was especially

developed by the efforts of At, who in 1968 opened the Abhidhamma Chotika College

(Aphitham Chotika Witthayalai) and in 1981 put it administrationally under

Mahachulalongkom Buddhist University, which has more stable sources of support33.

Apart from his textbooks and examinations, Chotika was very important in forming

well-known Thai Abhidhamma teachers in later generations. For example, Phra

Thipparinya, whose Abhidhamma textbook was once adopted as study material for the

third grade nak tham; Bunmi Methangkun, who established the Abhidhamma

Foundation; and Wannasit Waithayasewi, who established the Naep Mahaniranon

Foundation. Chotika should be considered as the teacher who gave a significant

foundation to Abhidhamma study in Thailand36.

phra thammathiraratmahamuni (chodok yanasit thera, parien tham 9 prayok)” (Life and work in
summary: Phra Thammathiraratmahamuni (Chodok Yanasit Thera, ninth level Pali qualification),
Phra Thammathiraratmahamuni, Phet nai duang chai (A jewel in the mind) (Bangkok: Samnak ngan
klang kong kan wipatsana thura, 1996), pp. 242 - 243. The names of these monks in Pali
transliteration are Bhaddanta Äsabha Thera Padhänakammatthänäcariya and Indavamsa Dhammäcariya
Kammatthänächariya.
33 “Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, pp. 115 - 116; “Aphitham chotika
witthayalai, mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai”, Aphitham chotika witthayalai (ed.), Ngan mop
prakatniyabat apitham bandit run 34/2540 (The ceremony to confer the qualification of Apitham
Bandit) (Bangkok: Aphitham Chotika Witthayalai, Mahachulalongkon Ratcha Witthayalai, 1998), p.
13. The year when Chotika started his teaching at Wat Mahathat could possibly be 1951, because
publications from the Abhidhamma Chotika College refer to their origin as Chotika’s arrival in
Thailand, which they say was in 1951. Compared with the rough overview of the school history of
the Abhidhamma Chotika College, I assume that the data in “Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha
maha thera)” are more reliable. This is because the latter provides more detailed information about
A t’s works, which were presumably recorded by At himself or surveyed by his disciples.
34 Phra Sikhamphirayan, interview.
35 “Aphitham chotika witthayalai, mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai”, p. 13.
36 According to a brochure 1 received in 1999, the Abhidhamma Chotika College has developed its
branches to twenty-one in Central Thailand, four in the North, eleven in the Northeast, fourteen in
the East, and two in the South (“Aphitham chotika witthayalai, mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai
191
 The other Burmese monk who came with Chotika, Techintha (or more

commonly Techin), also taught the Abhidhamma at Wat Mahathat, although he seems

not to have been together with Chotika, but in Khana 5, or Division 5 of the monks’

residential area in Wat Mahathat. Through Techin’s teaching, which was helped by Phra

Khru Prakatsamathikhun, a Thai assistant monk, the famous preacher, Kittiwuttho

Bhikkhu, learnt the Abhidhamma . However, Techin’s lessons did not last very long. In

1961 Techin went back to Burma, and he never returned Thailand38. It is rumoured that

he was arrested at the immigration bureau in Burma because he brought some gold bars

from Thailand^9.

For the teachers of vipassanä in the Burmese style, Phra Maha Chodok, a Thai

returnee student from Burma, was important40. With the assistance of the two Burmese

vipassanä teachers, Chodok made Khana 5 of Wat Mahathat a famous vipassanä training

class, which continues to exist up to the present. Among his disciples was, Khun Mae

Siri Krinchai (1917 - ), who now supervises vipassanä at the Young Buddhist Association

of Thailand (Yaowa phutthika samakhom haeng prathet t h a i f l.

However, A t’s undertakings led to difficulties because of his downfall through

conspiracies in ecclesiastic politics42. In September 1960 At was ordered to disrobe

being charged with a major vinaya offence, and in October and November his position as

the abbot of Wat Mahathat and his ecclesiastical title, Phra Phimolatham, were taken

away. Furthermore, in April 1962 he was arrested on the accusation of taking part in

communist activities. These charges were made up in order to remove him from power,

nai phra boromarachupatham” (The Abhidhamma Chotika College, Mahachulalongkon Ratcha

Witthayalai under Royal Patronage)). The data indicate expansion of Abhidhamma study from the
teaching of Chotika in Bangkok into provincial Thailand.
37 Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, interview.
38
“Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, p. 117.
39 Wannasit, interview.
40 For Chodok’s brief bio-data, see “Prawat lae phonngan doi yo: phra thammathiraratmahamuni
(chodok yanasit thera, parien tham 9 prayok)”.
41 About Khun Mae Siri, see Thammathan khong khun mae siri: thi raluk nuang nai wara charoen
chansa khrop 6 rop (72 pi) (Khun Mae Siri’s gift of the dhamma: commemoration for her sixth
twelve year cycle (seventy-two years old)) (22 August 1988).
42 About At’s downfall and its related political dispute, see Krachang Nanthaphot, Mahanikai -
thammayut (Mahanikai Order and Thammayut Order) (Nonthabri: Santi tham, 1985), pp. 175 - 253;
Peter Jackson, “Persecution of Phra Phimontham (Vimaladhamma) Bhikkhu”, Peter Jackson,
Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict: the political functions o f urban Thai Buddhism (Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), pp. 94 - 112.

192
Figure 4. A scheme of contemporary Abhidhamma studies introduced by a
Burmese monk, Chotika.
This figure is extracted from: Phra Satthamma Chotika Thammachariya, Paramattha chotika
paritchet thi 1-2-3: chit, chettasik, rup, nipphan (Chotika’s supreme teaching lesson 1-2-3: circa,
cecasika, rüpa, nibbäna) (The textbook for the most elementary level of the Abhidhamma examination
by Chotika’s Abhidhamma College at Wat Mahathat) (Bangkok: Mulanithi Satthamma Chotika,
1997), p. 39.

»o
__________ K___________
£ £ $ $ $ $ $ $

<o co CM co CM
c c cr C C c c c c C c
its las «as «E «as «as
«B its its ««
CP
(5 <s S t» s sP I» <* S
C 4(5
a K" 5'
VS3

p a «G s «P
2» £
to a
4C
CP CP CP
«e p 2»
as T3
«c p
«c* •^ 3
«2*
s 2
<CP
C3

4
and they were dismissed in August 1966. A t’s downfall meant a serious loss of support

for those monks who had bem invited by him. At returned from jail to Wat Mahathat in

November 1966, but it :ook more time to regain his ecclesiastic title and his position as

abbot. This happened in Ma/ 1975 and October 1981 respectively4-5. During the period

when At lost power, one Burmese vipassanä teacher monk returned to Burma, and the

other moved to Chonburi prcvince where a lay supporter founded a place for him44. The

Abhidhamma teacher, Techm, also returned to Burma in 1961, and Chotika died in

Thailand in 1966. In the 1963s, A t’s project of propagation of Abhidhamma studies and

vipassanä practice must have £one through a difficult time.

In the meantime, the propagation of Abhidhamma and vipassanä were also

promoted by lay preachers who had not had any direct link with A t’s ecclesiastic

politics. Phra Thipparinva (Thup Klamphasut; 1889 - 1977), who was an important lay

supporter of Wat Mahathat, and had studied Abhidhamma with Chotika, published an

Abhidhamma textbook, Chula aphithammatthasangkhaha (Elementary

Abhidhammatthasangaha). In 1951, this was approved as a textbook for the third grade nak

tham examination by Somdet Wanrat at Wat Banchamabophit45. This was perhaps one

of the early Abhidhamma textbooks written by Thais in the twentieth century, even then

people felt that the textbook was too difficult40, and its time as a nak tham textbook did

not last too long47. Phra Thipparinya devoted himself to propagating the Abhidhamma

as a supporter of the Burmese teachers, as a member of the Tipitaka translating

committee specialising in the Abhidhammapitaka48, and as an Abhidhamma lecturer on the

radio49.
The most influential event for Abhidhamma propagation in contemporary

Thailand was the beginning of Naep Mahaniranon’s regular lectures at the Buddhist

43 “Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, pp. 120 - 122.
44 “Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, pp. 118 - 119. The one who returned to
Burma was Inthawansa, and the other was Phatthanta Atsapha.
45 Anuson ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop phra thipparinya, p. 14.
46 Kittiwuttho Phikkhu, “Dae phra thipparinya” (To Phra Thipparinya), Anuson ngan phra ratcha
than phloeng sop phra thipparinya, p. 26.
47 Wannasit, interview. A s far as Wannasit remembered, the textbook w as only used for a year or so.
48 Phra Phimolatham, “Anuson khun phra thipparinya” (Memory of Khun Phra Thipparinya),
Anuson ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop phra thipparinya, pp. 13 - 14.
49 Kittiwuttho Phikkhu, “Dae phra thipparinya”, p. 26.
194
Association of Thailand in 195350. One of her listeners, Bunmi Methangkur. (1909 -
1991), was the owner of a chalk factory in Ayutthaya province, by which he had become
wealthy. When he first listened to Naep’s lecture at the Buddhist Association ty chance
in 1953, he suffered from stomach trouble, which came from work stress, bu: through
her lecture he understood the usefulness of Buddhist teaching which until then he had
not realised. At Naep’s suggestion, Bunmi not only began studying the Abhidhamma
with Chotika at Wat Rakhang, but also in September 1953 opened Abhidhamir.a classes
at the Buddhist Association. Naep, Phra Chanbannakit, and Bunmi himself were invited
as lecturers51. Through their efforts, Abhidhamma teaching was developed and
propagated at the Buddhist Association of Thailand.
Maniphan Charudun, another member of Naep’s audience at the Buddhist
Association also expanded opportunities for Abhidhamma propagation. In 1954
Maniphan first attended Naep’s lecture with his wife, Utsa, and discovered the
usefulness of the Abhidhamma for everyday life. Then committee member and
committee secretary of the Office of Culture concerning Custom and Tradition
(Kammakan lekhanukan samnak watthanatham thang rabiap prapheni) in the National
Culture Council (Sapha watthanatham haeng chat), Maniphan proposed a project to
promote Abhidhamma studies at his place of work. Phibun Songkhram, then the Prime
Minister and the president of the Council, approved the project, and Maniphan
organised Abhidhamma lectures at the auditorium of the Ministry of Culture. As part of
this project, he also invited Naep to give a lecture, and the auditorium was filled with
five to six hundred people who came to listen to her. Although this project should have
been abandoned with Phibun’s downfall in the September 1957 coup by Field Marshal
Sarit Thanarat, Maniphan considered this the first case of Abhidhamma propagation that
was officially supported by the government in the contemporary history of Thailand52.

50 “Chiwit lae ngan khong achan naep mahaniranon”, p. 3.

51 “Phra achan bunmi methangkuro: duang prathip duang ek haeng phra aphitham” (Phra Achan
Bunmi Methangkuro: the number one light of the Abhidhamma), Aphitham mulanithi lae khana sit
(The Abhidhamma Foundation and a group of disciples) (ed.), A lai phra achan bunmi methangkun
(In memory of Phra Achan Bunmi Methangkun) (Bangkok: 6 June 1992), pp. 1 - 3 ; “Mulanithi
aphitham mulanithi” (Foundation for the Abhidhamma Foundation) (A brochure given to me on my
visit on 9 October 1998).
52 Maniphan and Utsa Charudun, “Than achan naep kap pathom haet hai koet samakhom sun
khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana lae mulanithi phumiphalo phikkhu” (Ven. Naep and the origins
of the Association for Centre of the Research on Buddhism and the Phumiphalo Bhikkhu
195
 In the early 1960s, the popularity of Naep and strong financial assistance made
the Abhidhamma groups powerful in the Buddhist Association of Thailand, which was
by then already a prestigious place for Buddhist intellectuals. According to Sanya
Dhammasakdi, one of the founding members and a key promoter of the Association’s
activities, the Association used to have few assets of its own so the members had to buy
pencils and paper by splitting donations, or by bringing their own food to offer to the
monks. However, an Abhidhamma devotee donated land of 200 - 300 rai from which
the Association could gain several thousand baht each year as rent, and also another
student of the Abhidhamma donated land of 80 rai as a place for dhamma practice. Sanya
said that the Abhidhamma studies group established their own committee within the
Buddhist Association, and their members were involved in the Association’s
administration. At the same time, there was also a group for Sutta studies in the
Association, and the Association’s journal, Phuttha-tham (the Buddha dhamma),

published evenly series on the Abhidhamma and on the Sutta53. Although in his lecture
Sanya did not indicate any strife between the Abhidhamma and the Sutta groups, on
which Buddhadasa’s disciples relied, in the Buddhist Association, the Abhidhamma
group members started to leave the Association after 1962.
In December 1962, Maniphan’s group for Abhidhamma studies separated from
the Buddhist Association of Thailand, and launched their own Association for the
Centre of Research on Buddhism (Samakhom sun khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana).
This group proposed that the Buddhist Association establish a philological studies
section to maintain, transcribe, translate and publish ancient palm leaf manuscripts that
Thailand had inherited. The Association’s president, Sanya, examined their proposal at

Foundation), Thang bamphen kuson phua ok chak thuk haeng /can koet: anuson nai kan chapanakit
sop achan naep mahaniranon (The way to make merit in order to exit from the suffering of births:
commemoration at the cremation of Achan Naep Mahaniranon) (Bangkok: Samakhom sun
khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana, 14 December 1983), pp. 1 - 4 .
1)3 Sanya Thammasak (Sanya Dhammasakdi), Nathi khong phutthasamakhom (The duty of the
Buddhist Association; originally given on 18 February 1961) (Bangkok: Phutthasamakhom haeng
prathet thai, 1961), pp. 13 - 16. In fact, available data indicate that Bunmi was a member of the
administration committee and the dhamma studies committee at least from 1957 to 1964; Naep and
Khun Ying Rabiap Sunthralikhit, another Abhidhamma teacher, were in the advisory board as long
as from 1957 to 1967; and Naep and Bunmi were elected as one of the six vice-presidents in 1963
and 1965, respectively. The data here are based on the lists of the executive committee members and
advisors of the Buddhist Association published in the Association’s journal, Phuttha-tham, from
1957 until 1967, which I was able to access at the National Library of Thailand. They might also

196
the executive meeting, but it was not approved because the Association only intended to

provide lectures on the dhamma. The group of Maniphan later moved to the Somdet

Building (Akhan tuk somdet) at Wat Saket. They upheld Naep as the president of the

new Association until her death in 1983, and when those holders of high level Pali

qualification translated old canonical texts, they sought her advice as a vipassanä

meditator of higher achievement, even though she read neither Pali nor Thai34. Even

though Naep and other Abhidhamma teachers, such as Khun Ying Rabiap Sunthralikhit,

remained in the Buddhist Association as advisors and lecturers35, the year 1962 seems

to have been the beginning of the splitting of the Abhidhamma groups from the

Buddhist Association.

In 1962 another Abhidhamma group headed by Bunmi, which he had

established as the Abhidhamma Foundation {Aphitham mulanithi) in 1957, was also

asked by the Buddhist Association to find another place to give their lecture, because

the old place had to be demolished for the building of a new auditorium56. Bunmi’s

group remained in the Buddhist Association for a while even after 1962, but presumably

resigned from it in 1966, because after that his name was no longer listed as a member

of the administrative committee or the dhamma studies committee57. Also from April
1966, Bunmi started giving Abhidhamma lectures at Wat Phra Chetuphon, which is

commonly known as Wat Pho, to the abbot and vice-abbot of which he had been

introduced by Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu38. Even after 1966 Naep and others continued to stay,

but Bunmi’s resignation looks like the end of a financially strong Abhidhamma group in

the Buddhist Association, and a shift of stage for the giving of Abhidhamma lectures.

Contrary to the rational views of Buddhadasa and his disciples, both Naep and

Bunmi in their teachings put emphasis on a belief in the real existence of supernatural

beings, such as phi-sang thewada (spirits and deities), and life after death59. Especially

have been in the committees before 1957, and perhaps continued to be on them after 1967.
34 Maniphan and Utsa Charudun, “Than achan naep kap pathom haet hai koet . ..”, pp. 13 - 14;
Maniphan Charudun and Siri Phetchai, interview, Bangkok, 11 March 1999.
i:> See footnote 53 (about the membership of the executive committees in the Buddhist Association).
56 “Mulanithi aphitham mulanithi” (A brochure).
57 See footnote 53 (about the membership of the executive committees in the Buddhist Association).
58 “Mulanithi aphitham mulanithi” (A brochure).
39 Some said that the teachings of Bunmi and Naep were the same, but others said not exactly.
Bunmi’s biographer proudly wrote a comment by Naep, who heard Bunmi’s remarks about his
feelings in vipassanä, “Let me bless Bunmi. I entrust him to look after the Abhidhamma” (“Phra
197
when Bunmi was teaching at Wat Pho, he “proved” the reality of reincarnation and

mediumship, and gained people’s attention. His daughter, Sasithon Methangkun,

performed as a medium (rang song). As Bunmi’s biographer often mentioned, he was so

concerned that people could not be interested in the Abhidhamma because it involved

memorising many numbers, his performances seem to have been a way to attract

people60. Once, his daughter demonstrated her mediumship by driving a car while

wearing a blindfold at Suan Lumpini Park. However, Chanai Saengthongsuk, a famous

conjurer in Thailand, revealed that this was a trick61. Bunmi was exposed to criticism,

and it became the last performance of mediumship “. Bunmi’s reputation should have

suffered from such a demonstration of supematuralism and reincarnation. He

demonstrated it also in the provinces and in several foreign countries, but his biographer

wrote that it was not satisfactory, because those people and newspapers which did not

understand the Abhidhamma criticised him excessively63.

achan bunmi methangkuro: duang prathip duang ek haeng phra aphitham”, p. 5). Wannasit, who
used to be an Abhidhamma teacher at Bunmi’s school at Wat Pho but resigned later, said that the
understandings of Naep and Bunmi were basically the same, however Bunmi placed too much
emphasis on supematuralism in order to gain people’s attention, but Naep never performed
“miracles” (Wannasit, interview). Sawai Kaewsom and his friend stated that their understandings
about vifinäna (this Pali word means consciousness, but in Thailand tends to mean “a soul”) after
death. They said that Naep understood that vifinäna flows in the air after the death of a person, while
Bunmi insisted that there is no vifinäna after death, but an energy of kamma continues to exist and
leads to rebirth (Sawai Kaewsom and his friend, interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999).
60 “Phra achan bunmi methangkuro: duang prathip duang ek haeng phra aphitham”, pp. 3, 4, 5.
61 The spelling of the name, Chanai Saengthongsuk could not be confirmed at my interview with
Sawai Kaewsom, but was found by efforts of Achan Chintana Sandilands and Mrs. Vacharin
McFadden, who contacted their friends in Thailand from Canberra. I am grateful for their kindness.
62 “Kitchakan ngan khong than achan bunmi methangkun” (Activities of Ven. Bunmi Methangkun),
Aphitham mulanithi lae khana sit, Alai phra achan bunmi methangkun, p. 8; Sawai Kaewsom and
his friend, interview, 21 March 1999.
63 “Phra achan bunmi methangkuro: duang prathip duang ek haeng phra aphitham”, p. 4. Issues
about supematuralism and reincarnation were points about which Bunmi and Buddhadasa’s disciples
disagreed with each other. Sawai Kaewsom was once invited by Bunmi to give a talk at Wat Pho,
and he opposed Bunmi’s understanding of kamma. By criticising Bunmi, who explained the concept
of kamma as life after death, Sawai insisted that kamma is intention to perform good and evil, and thus
it is only a matter of the present life (Sawai Kaewsom, interview, 21 March 1999). Since the Buddha
said those who believe in reincarnation of a soul and those who deny it are both micchäditthi (wrong
view), Buddhadasa was careful enough in his teaching not to deny reincarnation, but to encourage
the overcoming of sufferings in this lifetime. See for example, Than phutthathat (Ven. Buddhadasa),
“Tai laeo koet ik ru mai” (Are we reborn again or not), Pun Chongprasoet, Rian ru phutthasasana
phai nai 15 nathi (Studying Buddhism within fifteen minutes) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana), pp. 19 - 24. However, some of Buddhadasa’s followers, such as Pun Chongprasoet
and Sawai Kaewsom, interpreted his teaching that there is no rebirth after death, and the idea of
rebirth as not Buddhist but Brahmanist (see for example, Pun Chongprasoet, “Rian m phutthasasana
phai nai 15 nathi”, Pun Chongprasoet, Rian ru phutthasasana phai nai 15 nathi, pp. 5 - 18; Sawai
Kaewsom, Tai koet, tai sun, panha lok taek ru? (Reincarnation, or extinction after death: Is it a
198
 Apart from the influence of Phra Phimolatham (At) and Naep Mahaniranon,

Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu is another famous Abhidhamma teacher. Ordained in 1957 at the

age of twenty, Kittiwuttho moved to Wat Mahathat in 1960 in order to study

Abhidhamma with the Burmese teacher, Techin, and to teach the Tipitaka and the

Abhidhamma in the Dhamma Research Division (.Phanaek thamma wichai), a

propagation division of Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University64. Since the Dhamma

Research Division was located at Lan Asok, Kittiwuttho’s teaching of the Abhidhamma

was also of interest to people who came to discuss the dhamma there. His propagation

activities were consolidated when he established the Foundation of the Abhidhamma

{Mulanithi aphitham) at Wat Mahathat in August 19656\ Supported by the Foundation,

Kittiwuttho extended his radio preaching on a broadcast frequency allocated by the

government, as well his training of young novices and monks to become preachers66.

Also using these bases, he started attacking Buddhadasa around 196467. Compared with

other Abhidhamma groups, Kittiwuttho’s propagation of the Abhidhamma started later

in the 1960s, when others were already facing difficulties either in the politics within

the Sangha or in the prestigious lay associations.

Positions of Abhidhamma groups in Thai Buddhism

In summary, the history of Abhidhamma studies in contemporary Thailand

suggests two points important to understand the conflict between Buddhadasa and

Abhidhamma groups. First, Abhidhamma studies have a rather marginal position in the

ecclesiastical examination curricula of the Thai Sangha. In Thailand today, the Sangha

enforces “orthodoxy” through the ecclesiastical examinations, because all Thai

co
Buddhists have to accept them . Even though the Theraväda Abhidhamma is the

problem that divides the world?) (1991)). Bunmi’s Abhidhamma group and Buddhadasa’s disciples
had opposing views on this issue, and they provoked a conflict in the Buddhist public sphere in
Thailand.
64 Kittiwuttho, interview. About Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, see also Chapter III, pp. 167 - 172.
Than chao phra khun somdet phra wanrat, “Kham klao nai phithi poet mulanithi aphitham
mahathat witthayalai” (A speech at the opening ceremony of Mulanithi Aphitham Mahathat
Witthayalai), Chofa, Vol. 1 No. 1 (October 1965), p. 5.
66 Kittiwuttho, interview.
6' Pun Chongprasoet, “Maihet” (An endnote), Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, “Ruang chit wang nok phra
traipidok . ..”,A rai thuk, araiphit, p. 131.
68 Cf. Ishii, “The establishment and significance of the ecclesiastical examination system”, Sangha,
state, and society, pp. 81 - 99.
199
doctrinal core that the Theraväda school developed throughout its history, in Thailand it
was studied only by limited numbers of people intending to take the higher levels of
Pali examinations. It is considered not only too difficult for the majority of Thai people
to understand and discuss, but also less crucial than the Vinaya and the Sutta for the
Sangha authorities to use as a principle.
Second, Abhidhamma studies are only a recent phenomenon in Thailand. They
were re-imported from Burma by the middle of the twentieth century, and especially
after the downfall of Phra Phimolatham (At), the key promoters of Abhidhamma studies
in Thailand were lay teachers rather than elder monks in the Sangha. Although there
were also monk-teachers of the Abhidhamma, such as Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, they were
not in a position of authority in the Sangha to make judgement on doctrinal
controversies. In other words, in contemporary Thailand the Abhidhamma groups
should not be understood as the adjudicator of “orthodoxy” of Thai Buddhism, but
rather as prominent participants in the Buddhist public sphere.
Because of their position as newly arisen minority groups, Abhidhamma
groups were criticised by Thammayut monks at Wat Boromniwat and Wat Bowonniwet,
where many powerful monks in ecclesiastical politics abide69. However, because of
their highly detailed systematic theories, the Abhidhamma teachers were theoretically
well prepared for any doctrinal disputes. In their view, one of the most respected monks
from the Mahanikai Order, P. A. Payuttho (1939 - ), also misunderstood Buddhist
doctrine70. All these monks were respected as academics in Thailand, but none of them

69 For example, Wannasit mentioned that Pemangkharo Bhikkhu at Wat Boromniwat had harshly
criticised the Abhidhamma. Also, he said that Phra Thepdilok (Rabaep Chittayano) at Wat
Bowonniwet used to criticise it, but Rabaep changed his mind and recently requested their textbooks
to study (Wannasit, interview). Rabaep is one of the academic monks at Mahamakut Buddhist
University, and well-known for his critical campaign against Catholicism, which he claimed had a
plot to destroy Buddhism. About his campaign, see Phra Ratchathamnithet (Rabaep Chittayano),
Phaen thamlai phra phutthasasana (The plot to destroy Buddhism) (Bangkok: Sun songsoem phra
phutthasasana haeng phrathet thai, 1994).
0 For example, when I interviewed Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu on 29 April 1999, we happened to speak of
a contemporary debate between the Thammakai group and P. A. Payuttho about whether nibbäna is
attä (self) or anattä (non-self). Kittiwuttho said both the Thammakai and Payuttho were wrong. If
nibbäna is anattä as Payuttho insisted, nibbäna should have the sämanna lakkhana (general
characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and not-self), which belongs to the sankhata dhamma
(conditioned dhamma). If it is attä as the Thammakai group insisted, it is suffering, which also has the
sämanna lakkhana of the sankhata dhamma. Kittiwuttho explained, according to the Abhidhamma theory,
that nibbäna is neither attä nor anattä, but it is the asahkhata dhamma (unconditioned dhamma), which has
the characteristic of tranquility (Kittiwuttho, interview). Another Abhidhamma teacher, Wannasit
200
had any authority from the Thai Sangha to give a definitive answer to doctrinal

questions. They were all discussants in the Buddhist public sphere, who could only

present their own interpretations, and the public audience of their discussion decided

which one had the most convincing argument. Among their opponents, Buddhadasa was

the most influential competitor for the Abhidhamma groups in the Thai Buddhist public

sphere in the 1960s.

It is important to note that not all the Abhidhamma groups were monolithically

antagonistic to Buddhadasa. As their history suggests, they can be roughly divided into

three groups: first, institutionalised Abhidhamma studies introduced by Phra

Phimolatham (At)’s sponsorship and Chotika’s scholarship71; second, lay teachers at the

Buddhist Association affiliated with the charismatic figure of Naep Mahaniranon; and

third, Kittiwuttho’s Foundation, which arose later and independently from the other

two ". After the mid-1960s the second group further differentiated into three groups: the

philologist group, which moved to Wat Saket ; Bunmi Methangkun’s group, which

moved to Wat Pho74; and the group of Wannasit Waithayasewi, who established the

Naep Mahaniranon Foundation (Mulanithi naep mahaniranon) in 198075. Among these

'Waithayasewi, said that those who study only the Suttapitaka did not understand the reasonable
principles of sabhäva (individual essence). In his view, Payuttho was one of them, and he analysed
the dhamma incorrectly. However, Wannasit also said that if Payuttho studied the Abhidhamma, he
would be very good (Wannasit, interview).
71 This group includes two educational institutions. One is the Abhidhamma school at Wat Rakhang,
Khana 7, where Chotika used to teach, and which has been handed down to Phra Sikhamphirayan
(Thawan). The other one is the Aphitham Chotika Witthayalai in Wat Mahathat, which is now run as
a part of Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University. These two were institutionalised as colleges rather
than becoming centred on individual charisma.
72 For conducting activities, Kittiwuttho established the Foundation of the Abhidhamma (Mulanithi
aphitham) and Djitthabhawan College, which was founded in 1967 in Chonburi province. However,
Kittiwuttho’s training project for novices and young monks does not specialise in the Abhidhamma,
but provides wider and more general knowledge for those monks, who otherwise have few chances
of formal education, to become capable preachers (Kittiwuttho, interview).
7j This group established the Association for the Centre of Research on Buddhism in Wat Saket.
Apart from philological studies, the group also has an Abhidhamma class at their weekend school. It
includes Maniphan and Utsa Charudun, and Suchin Borihanwannaket, a well-known female
Abhidhamma teacher.
74 The institutional body of this group is the Abhidhamma Foundation, which was established by
Bunmi Methangkun. After Bunmi presumably left the Buddhist Association in 1966, he continued
his activities at Wat Pho until 1987 when his patron, Somdet Wanrat, died and he was asked to return
the temple premises. In 1987, the Abhidhamma Foundation moved to Phutthamonthon Sai 4, and
after Bunmi’s death in 1991, his daughter has been in charge of the activities.
75 Wannasit used to be a teacher at Bunmi’s Abhidhamma school at Wat Pho, but he withdrew
because of disagreeing with Bunmi’s excessive emphasis on supematuralism. He now teaches
Abhidhamma and vipassanä at Wat Bowonniwet, but only to lay people, not the monks and novices
living there, who are not allowed to have instructions from outside teachers (Wannasit, interview).
201
subdivided Abhidhamma groups, those which conducted harsh campaigns against
Buddhadasa were those of Bunmi and of Kittiwuttho. In their campaigns, some
Abhidhamma teachers and students, joined together and co-operated, for example Phra
Thipparinya, who first accused Buddhadasa of being a communist, and Anan Senakhan,
an anti-communist police officer who studied Abhidhamma with Bunmi .
On the other hand, there were several individuals and one group which
accommodated both the teachings of Buddhadasa and those of the Abhidhamma. For
example, Sawai Kaewsom, the dhamma orator at the Lan Asok, was inspired by
Buddhadasa’s booklet, Phasa-khon - phasa-tham (Human language and dhamma

language) and also incorporated the Abhidhamma theory into his teachings7'. Ravi
Bhavirai, a famous public intellectual and astronomy teacher at Chulalongkom
University, also adopted both Buddhadasa and the Abhidhamma78.
Furthermore, Phra Phimolatham (At), one of the most influential patrons of
Abhidhamma propagation in contemporary Thailand, was even supportive of
Buddhadasa. According to Phra Sitthawat, who was a personal secretary of At before
his arrest in 1960, At highly respected Buddhadasa as a Buddhist philosopher79. At not
only visited Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh, but also in 1954 accorded him the honour of
giving a speech at the sixth council (the Chattasahgäyana) in Burma as a representative of
Thai Buddhists80. The following episode of Buddhadasa’s, presumably first, public
criticism of the Abhidhamma is indicative and helps understand the relationship
between the Abhidhamma groups and Buddhadasa.
This episode occurred at Wat Mahathat in 1953 at the celebration for the
conferring on Phra Phimolatham (At) by the government of Burma of the title,
Agga-Mahäpandita (literally “foremost great scholar”, according to Sithawat, it is an
honorary position next to the vice-Supreme Patriarch in Burma) . Buddhadasa was

76 The Wat Saket group and Wannasit’s group also did co-operate in defending the Abhidhamma
against the Buddhadasa’s lecture at the Buddhist Association in 1965, but they did not commit to
further critical campaigns.
77 Sawai Kaewsom interview, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
78 Ravi Bhavirai (Rawi Phawirai), interview, Bangkok, 4 May 1999.
79 Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko, interview, Nonthaburi, 30 April 1999.
80 Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, Lao wai mua wai sonthaya: Atchiwaprawat khong than Phutthathat
(Talking in the twilight years: an autobiography of Venerable Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Mulanithi
Komon Khimthong, 1988), pp. 377 - 379.
81 Sithawat, interview. The year of the incident that Sithawat mentioned in his interview was
202
invited by At to give a speech under the title, gantha dhura (“the task of the books”, i.e.,
scriptural studies) ~. In front of the faces of the Abhidhamma teachers and students who
attended in the main hall of Wat Mahathat, Buddhadasa rejected the Abhidhamma.
Immediately, Chao Khun Phra Khamphiprichayan Thera, one of the influential monks,
seized the microphone from the moderator and rebuked, “This destroys Wat Mahathat
the most, destroys the Abhidhamma most radically, and is the worst speech”83.
The title, gantha dhura, which was given to Buddhadasa by At, seems to have
already contained a cause of conflict. It is used as a pair with vipassanä dhura, which
means “the task of contemplation”. Also, the speaker, Buddhadasa, whom At selected,
was known for his study of scriptures and for radical speech. By giving this title to
Buddhadasa, I suspect that At, who was also promoting vipassanä meditation practice
together with Abhidhamma studies, might have expected him to criticise a certain
tendency of Abhidhamma teachers to teach students just to memorise numerical
categories in meticulous theories and schemes instead of applying the principles in
practice. Buddhadasa, on the other hand, was known for only selecting practical ideas
that would help reducing suffering. Although this is only a speculation, Buddhadasa
might have been nominated by one of the key promoters of Abhidhamma to criticise the
contemporary tendency in Abhidhamma studies, especially rote learning, and he
actually took on the role by freely airing his own opinions.
This story and the relationships between Buddhadasa and individual
Abhidhamma students and groups indicate that the reason for their conflicts cannot be
reduced to ideological disagreement over the Abhidhamma itself. Because some Abhi­
dhamma teachers and students had no problem with Buddhadasa, and vice versa, the
Abhidhamma could be used together with Buddhadasa’s teaching. The most important
criterion for Buddhadasa in distinguishing the authenticity of a certain teaching was
whether or not it was related to the purpose of overcoming suffering. Buddhadasa dared
to say that we should tear out some portions of the Tipitaka , if they have nothing to do

confirmed in “Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, p. 120. As far as Sithawat knows,
this speech by Buddhadasa was not recorded.
82 Sithawat, then a monk secretary of At, sent a telegram to Buddhadasa to ask him to give a speech
under this title on behalf of At (Sithawat, interview).
83 Sithawat, interview.
203
with this purpose . Although Buddhadasa tended to say that the Abhidhamma was too
philosophical and of too little use for dhamma practice85. Buddhadasa’s radical criticism
of the Abhidhamma was accepted by some Abhidhamma teachers and students who
shared his concerns in this regard. In fact, the aim of studying the precise details of the
Abhidhamma theory of mind is to apply them as necessary in meditation practice and to
the way to reach nibbäna . Ultimately Buddhadasa and Abhidhamma studies were not
totally without common ground.
The following discussion about Buddhadasa’s provocative lecture will suggest
that the most important issue in the conflict between Buddhadasa and Abhidhamma
groups at the Buddhist Association was the effect of Buddhadasa’s claim that the
Ahidhamma was not in the form of the Buddha’s words. The Abhidhamma teachers
tried very hard to preserve the credibility of the Abhidhamma, and to discredit
Buddhadasa. Their doctrinal challenge of Buddhadasa’s explanation about the mind was
not the primary cause of their conflict, but rather a method in order to keep face in front
of the public. The significance of their conflict was in the impact of their arguments on
the audience in the Buddhist public sphere.

2. Buddhadasa’s lecture at the Buddhist Association in 1965 and responses to it

On 21 January 1965 Buddhadasa gave a controversial lecture, “Things that we

have not yet understood” at the Buddhist Association of Thailand, a Buddhist place for
exchanging ideas and holding discussions87. This lecture provoked extensive refutation
from the lay teachers of the Abhidhamma, and became the beginning of a serious
conflict with Buddhadasa. This was only two days after the third session on empty mind
at the Khurusapha auditorium, in which Buddhadasa gave a lecture to respond to the
criticism from Kukrit Pramoj, who had disagreed with him in the previous session and
then written critical articles in his newspapers. During this time Buddhadasa became a

84 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 472 - 473.

85 Phra Pracha, Lao w a i..., p. 486.
86 See footnote 9 (about the practical purpose of the Abhidhamma).
87 This lecture is published as: Phutthathat phikkhu, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai (The
things that we have not yet understood) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana).
204
controversial figure in the Buddhist public sphere.
In this lecture Buddhadasa, according to the purpose he stated at the beginning,
did not intend to say who was right and who was wrong, but rather to indicate the issues
to be understood as a foundation. Buddhadasa said, “Everyone should consider their
rights and duties to dig into these issues to be clear about them for the benefit of all. I
oo
am also in the position of one among the many people who co-operate in this duty” .
Thus, in the lecture Buddhadasa presented different views about each issue, and
explained his way of understanding.
In the lecture, Buddhadasa examined ten issues that people get caught up in
and which prevent them from understanding the dhamma. The ten issues he raised were:
1) whether Iokuttara dhamma is suitable for lay people or not; 2) whether original mind
has defilements or is pure; 3) whether or not all desires are defilements; 4) whether
paticcasamuppäda (dependent origination) means reincarnation or not; 5) whether we
should believe in later canonical works or not; 6) the Abhidhammapitaka', 7) suhhatä

(emptiness); 8) kilesa (defilements) and bodhi (enlightenment); 9) superstitions and

dogmas in Buddhism; and 10) those who should be called “Buddhadasa” (a slave of the
Buddha)8*. Among the ten, some were related to the discussion with Kukrit in the
previous year, but throughout the lecture, most topics taken up were to do with
problems that he perceived in contemporary Thai teachings that referred to
Abhidhamma.
Buddhadasa’s explanations about Abhidhamma were controversial for his
audience at the Buddhist Association both in historical and semantic terms. First, he
explained historically,
When we explore the Abhidham mapitaka , the third basket of the Pali Tipio k a , it is not
in the form of Buddha-vacana (the Buddha’s words). It is only Buddha-vacana in terms
of attha , or meaning and is only a portion of it. We have to be very careful to choose
meanings for the Pali Abhidhammapitaka, which correspond to the Buddha-vacana.
When speaking of vyanjana (letters), or the characters and words of speech, the
Abhidham mapitaka is not Buddha-vacana at all. It is not in the form of speech by the
Buddha nor in terms of form of language or literary style. The Abhidhammapitaka is
composed of verses written in a later period90.

88 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, p. 2.

89 These ten issues are discussed in the following pages in Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai
kan mai d a i: 1) pp. 2 - 5; 2) pp. 5 - 8; 3) pp. 9 - 15; 4) pp. 15 - 19; 5) pp. 20 - 23; 6) pp. 23 - 31; 7)
pp. 3 2 - 4 1 ; 8) pp. 42 - 44; 9) pp. 44 - 46; and 10) pp. 46 - 50.
0 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, pp. 23 - 24.
205
 This statement by Buddhadasa had a significant impact on his audience.
Although Buddhadasa carefully stated that the Abhidhammapitaka is the Buddha-vacana in
terms of its meaning, that is, it is equal to the teachings of the Buddha, his statement
almost sounded as if the Abhidhamma was less authentic because it was composed later,
not spoken by the Buddha himself. Such an impression was further amplified by his
subsequent talk.
Although the Buddha actually mentioned the word, abhi-dhamma, Buddhadasa
suggested that by abhi-dhamma the Buddha did not mean the Abhidhammapitaka, which was
to be composed after his death, but instead he meant the dhamma which was explained
deeply, broadly, and completely. In the same way that the compound word, abhi-vinaya,
means precise interpretations in detail added to the vinaya. Like a collection of judicial
precedents, abhi-dhamma means the detailed explanation of the dhamma that requires extra
insight to understand. In other words, Buddhadasa said,
... the Buddha intended to analyse minutely the parts which need to be explained in
detail, so he did not think abhi-vinaya and abhi-dhamma were necessary. ... He only
spoke o f the dhamma and vinaya as we can see in the [first and second] councils,
which only settled [questions of] the dhamma and vinaya in the Tipitaka.^...There was
no mention o f the Abhidhammapitaka, but only the dhamma and the vinaya .

By this explanation, Buddhadasa implied not only that the Abhidhammapitaka was not
composed by the Buddha, but that the abhi-dhamma that the Buddha mentioned was also
something extra and not as essential as the dhamma and the vinaya.
Furthermore, Buddhadasa said that later Buddhists turned to supematuralism
which was more attractive for ordinary people than the religious teachings, but he
considered that those aspects concealed the dhamma that the Buddha taught. Buddhadasa
found, for example, that the Gambhira Kathävatthu of the Abhidhammapitaka contains a lot of
micchäditthi (wrong view) and new ideologies born in South India “. He also indicated
that the story of the Buddha’s ascent to the Tävatimsä (the realm of the Thirty-three
Gods) to preach the Abhidhamma to his mother appeared only in the Dhammapada
atthakathä, which was written even later than the Abhidhammapitaka . In this later exegesis,
Buddhadasa did not discover anything significant added to the teachings of how to
overcome suffering given in the Suttapitaka, such as the four noble truths and dependent

91 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, pp. 28 - 29.
92 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai , pp. 27 - 28.

206
origination94. When Buddhadasa discredited the later exegesis as being nothing to do
with the overcoming of suffering, his claim that the Abhidhammapiuika as not
Buddha- vacana not only brought into question its composer, but also implied a doubt
about whether its teaching was equivalent to that of the Buddha.
Moreover, Buddhadasa interpreted the meaning of the word, Abhidhamma, in
his own way. He sought a concept that would be relevant, by definition, to be called
abhi-dhamma , which means the greatest or the highest dhamma, that is, for Buddhadasa,
sunhatä (emptiness). Here he cited his favorite Pali phrase,
Ye te suttantä Tathägatabhäsitä gambhirä gambhiratthä lokuttarä sunnatapatisamyuttä (As to
those discourses uttered by the Tathägata, deep, deep in meaning, transcendental and
concerned with the Void, from time to time we w ill spend our days learning
them)95.

From this phrase, he deduced,

... anything that does not indicate sunnatä is not a discourse by the Tathägata, is not
deep, is not deep in meaning, is not transcendental. When something indicates
sunnata, then it is the deep discourse by the Tathägata, has deep meaning, and is
transcendental*6.

Then, he asked which one is appropriate to be called abhi-dhamma , the state of

emptiness that does not desire anything, or the state of pursuing merit, heaven, and
mahä-kusala citta (a mind with great merit), as some Abhidhamma teachers were
promoting in their lectures. Of course, Buddhadasa supported the former as the highest
dhamma . He criticised those inflammatory Abhidhamma teachers as making dogma in
Buddhism, because they were teaching that without studying the Abhidhamma, people
would fall into hell98. Buddhadasa proposed in front of an audience of Abhidhamma
teachers in the Buddhist Association to replace the content of the Abhidhamma with
emptiness.
This lecture was very provocative for the Abhidhamma groups. In response,

Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, p. 24.
94 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, p. 27.
95 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, p. 30. According to Lamotte’s study on
emptiness in Buddhist scriptures, this Pali phrase appears at least four times in the Suttapitaka. For
more details, see Chapter III, footnote 23. The translation o f this Pali phrase here is cited from: F. L.
Woodward, The book o f the kindred sayings (Samyutta-nikäya) or grouped suttas: part V (Mahä-vagga)
(London: The Pali Text Society, 1965), p. 348.
96 Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, pp. 30 - 31.
Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, pp. 31 - 32.
98
Phutthathat, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai, pp. 45 - 46.
207
they published on 31 July 1965 a book entitled Refuting the lecture of Buddhadasa".
This book was a similar attempt to that of the book by Pun Chongprasoet, Arai thuk arai
phit, which collected both articles that disagreed with Buddhadasa’s concept of empty
mind and those defending it. This time, one of the Abhidhamma groups headed by
Bunmi Methangkun set up in the book a forum of public debate to speak against
Buddhadasa. Following the introduction by Bunmi, the book begins with Buddhadasa’s
controversial lecture, there is a line-up of the refutations from the Abhidhamma
lecturers at the Buddhist Association, including, Phra Chanbannakit, Khun Ying Rabiap
Sunthralikhit, Phra Maha Songthan, Wiset Butsapawet, and Wannasit Waithayasewi. In
the book, the most serious problem that the Abhidhamma teachers perceived in
Buddhadasa’s lecture was whether or not the Abhidhamma was truly the Buddha’s
words (Thai: Phuttha-phot; Pali: Buddha-vacana).

This seems to have been because Buddhadasa’s indication that the

Abhidhammapitaka was a later exegesis and not the speech by the Buddha had a great
impact on his audience. According to Bunmi, after his lecture the Abhidhamma teachers
every day had to answer the question whether or not the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s
words, and the Abhidhamma teaching became very confused. Moreover, books and
handbills, which opposed the Abhidhamma as not being the Buddha’s words, were
distributed within the Buddhist Association, and the Abhidhamma school in the
Association was almost ruined. This was only twelve years after the establishment of
the Abhidhamma school within the Buddhist Association, which Naep and Bunmi alone
had established as lecturers, but then it had already grown larger in numbers of students,
classrooms, and lecturers100. Buddhadasa’s lecture seriously damaged the flourishing
Abhidhamma studies in the Buddhist Association.
One of the reasons for such a reaction was because of the general perception by
ordinary Buddhists in Thailand. In fact, it is agreed by international scholars that the

99 [Bunmi Methangkun (ed.)], To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu (Bangkok: Aphitham

mulanithi, 1965, 1980). The second edition, which was published in 1980, was in co-operation with
the Ongkan phithak phutthasasana (Organisation to protect Buddhism), which was headed by Anan
Senakhan, who studied the Abhidhamma with Bunmi at Wat Pho (Bunmi Methangkun, “Thoi
thalaeng” (Postscript), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu, p. (ngo.)).
100 Bunmi Methangkun, “Kham prarop” (Forward), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu, pp. 13
- 14.
208
Abhidham m apitaka was composed later than the other two pitaka , which were more or less
taught by the Buddha and recited in the first and second councils; all this is according to
studies based on the chronology of early Buddhism. According to Saddhatissa, among
the seven books of the A bhidham m apitaka , three were probably recited in the second
council held in the fourth century B.C.E., another three were recited at the third council
held during Emperor Asoka’s reign (c. 269 - 232 B.C.E.), and the last one was most
likely composed by the president of the third council101. However, Buddhaghosa, the
late-fourth-century commentator and compiler of the Visuddhim agga , guarded against
accusations that the Abhidham m apitaka was not Buddha-vacana (the Buddha’s words), and
stated that the textual order of the Abhidhamma originated with Säriputta, a principle
follower of the Buddha, and the Buddha himself was the first äbhidham m ika102.

Consequently, it is no surprise if contemporary Thai people who have faith in Buddhism

do not know such assessments of the historical origins of the Abhidham m apitaka, and have
never dared to question whether it was the words of the Buddha or not, because it makes
up a part of the Tipi taka. In such circumstances, Buddhadasa’s remark was too shocking
for those Thai Buddhists who had just started being interested in the Abhidhamma.
No matter what the actual facts were, the important thing in a public sphere is
image or perception. The Thai Abhidhamma teachers had to defend the Abhidhamma’s
credibility with plausible arguments. For example, Bunmi wrote,
One [of the philosophers in Thailand] said that the seven volumes of the
Abhidhammapitaka is the Buddha’s words, but the Abhidhammatthasahgaha is not the
Buddha’s words, because Anuruddha was the one who wrote it later on103.

He also wrote,
Some people say that among the seven books of the Abhidhammapitaka, there is a
book which is the words of the Buddha. That is book one, the Dhammasahgani.
While, the other six, including the Vibhahga, Dhätukathä, Puggalapannatti, Kathävatthu,
Yamaka, Tika-patthäna, and Duka-patthäna, were composed later104.

Bunmi, by putting these suggestive ideas in many other contexts, which had nothing to
do with the main discussion, although he never asserted that the Abhidham m apitaka was
truly the Buddha’s own words, he seems to have expected his readers to think of it as a

101 Hammalawa Saddhatissa, “Introduction: the Abhidhammatthasangaha”, pp. xiii - xxiii.

102 K. R. Norman, Päli literature including the canonical literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit of all the
Hinayäna Schools o f Buddhism (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), p. 98.
103 Bunmi Methangkun, “Kham prarop”, p. 8.
104 Bunmi Methangkun, “Kham prarop”, p. 10.
209
possibility.
Another Abhidhamma teacher, Phra Chanbannakit, indicated several canonical
texts in the Suttapitaka and the Vinayapitaka in which abhi-dhamma was discussed, and
concluded,
In the Buddha’s era, there were many elder bhikkhu and bhikkbuni who studied the
Abhidhamma closely. If the Abhidhammapitaka did not exist, how could they study
it? Speaking of the poetic verses, they should haye been written at the first council
together with the Suttapitaka and the Vinayapitaka105.

The word, abhi-dhamma, actually occurs in the Suttapitaka and the Vinayapitaka, but this
does not support the view that the Abhidhammapitaka was composed at the same time as
the other two groups of texts. These defences of the Abhidhammapitaka against
Buddhadasa were involved suggestions and manipulations of people’s perceptions.
Among other articles, Chao Khun Kwiworayan’s lecture, which is cited in the
article by Khun Ying Rabiap, presented a reasonable argument to defend the status of
the Abhidhamma as Buddha-vacana106. He referred to commentaries, such as the Atthasälini,
that says that the seven volumes of the Abhidhammapitaka are arranged as Buddha-bhäsita

(the Buddha’s sayings), and considers the Kathävatthu in the Abhidhammapitaka as

Buddha-vacana, because it was composed in accordance with the Buddha’s purpose by
Moggaliputta Tissa, the third council’s chairperson. Also, he said that the Tipitaka

includes many sutta, such as the Theragäthä, Thengäthä, and some spoken by Ananda, that
were not spoken by the Buddha, but which are classified as Buddha-vacana. He concluded
that all the teachings that the Buddha gave in various sutta are called the dhamma, whilst
all the explanations about the dhamma that the Buddha taught in various sutta are the
abhi-dhamma . Such an interpretation by Kwiworayan was moderate and widely
acceptable for most Thai Buddhists, who respected the Abhidhammapitaka as a part of
their religion’s scriptures.
After Buddhadasa experienced these attempted rebuttals of the Abhidhamma
teachers, in the dhamma lecture at Suan Mokkh on 20 March 1971, which was entitled

1Cb Phra Chanbannakit, “Sing thi yang mai at khaochai kan dai” (Things that still might not be able
to be understood), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu, pp. 196 - 197.
106 Khun Ying Rabiap Sunthralikhit, “Kham to top” (A retort), To top patthakatha phutthathat
phikkhu, pp. 203 - 225. This lecture by Chao Khun Kwiworayan was given in February 1963, which
was before Buddhadasa’s controversial lecture, and not directly to do with criticism of Buddhadasa.
107 Rabiap, “Kham to top”, pp. 204 - 209.
210
What is the Abhidhamma? , Buddhadasa responded more radically to his Abhidhamma

critics. Buddhadasa reflected on his lecture at the Buddhist Association in 1965 and

admitted that his speech might have given the impression that the Abhidhamma is not

the Buddha’s words. However, he reminded people that he had also said that in terms of

the meaning, there were some portions o f the Abhidhamma that could be considered as

the Buddha’s teachings, but there were also some that could not. In the 1971 lecture,

Buddhadasa examined which portions should be regarded as the Buddha’s teachings,

and which ones should not be108. This time, Buddhadasa’s criticism became more

specifically aimed at contemporary Abhidhamma studies rather than claiming that the

Abhidhammapitaka was later exegesis. He proposed to replace the “excessive and false

abhi-dham m a'1 with “true abhi-dhamma'".

Buddhadasa sarcastically named contemporary Abhidhamma studies aphitham

met makham (the Abhidhamma of tamarind seeds), which made circle diagrams in order

to memorise the numbers of the mind’s characteristics based on the

A bhidham m atthasangaha 109 . Contrary to the abhi-dhamma in the Buddha’s period,

Buddhadasa suggested that contemporary Abhidhamma studies in Thailand explained

the Abhidhamma as something to do with supernatural power or something sacred

{khong khlang, khong saksit). He called such Abhidhamma a khong koen (an excessive

thing), and warned that it had fallen into thamma dam (black dhamma), which was a tool

for boasting and condescension. He criticised that Abhidhammists of such a black

dhamma " ... had a mind with defilements, defensiveness, and the selling of

[Abhidhamma] as consumer goods”, and such Abhidhamma as an advertisement for

vipassanaw as instead an enemy of vipassana 10.

Buddhadasa levelled his criticism at the foundations of contemporary Thai

Abhidhammists. He declared,

Sweep away all the Abhidhamma, which we commonly know. Whatever things are
attached to the Abhidhamma, such as the Abhidhammapitaka, the
Abhidhammatthasangaha, and Abhidhamma-something, sweep them away and
abandon them. We will not be short of anything, because we have the Suttapitaka left

108 Phutthathat, A phitham khu arai?, p. 4.

109 Phutthathat, A phitham khu arai?, pp. 29, 32, 117. See Figure 4 as an example of the
Abhidhamma diagrams.
110 Phutthathat, A phitham khu arai?, pp. 33 - 39.
211
 as an item of practice in order to attain nibbäna quickly without getting lost111.

Instead of being “deluded and addicted” to the so-called Abhidhamma, Buddhadasa

here again placed suhhatä in the position of the true abhi-dhamma, which literally means
the highest dhamma, as he had done in the 1965 lecture112.
Abhidhamma groups rebutted Buddhadasa also from a doctrinal point of view.
Especially, they targeted his Mahäyänistic interpretation of the mind, which did not fit
into the theory of Abhidhamma. In a letter from a group of Abhidhamma students
questioning Buddhadasa, which was included in the book published in reply to his
lecture in 1965, questions were asked about the specifics of his interpretation among the
many subdivided types of mind according to Abhidhamma classification. On the issue
of empty mind, they argued that, according to the sabhäva dhamma (principle of nature) in
the Abhidhamma theory, the mind cannot be empty because it always perceives an
ärammana (object) . Also, they examined the Pali phrase, pabhassaram idam bhikkhave

cittam, by which Buddhadasa argued that the original mind is pure and free from
defilements. In their interpretation, it only indicated a mind that is not interfered with by
coarse defilements. The Abhidhamma divides such states of mind into nineteen kinds,
including two upekkhä santfrana, eight mahä vipäka, and nine mahaggata vipäka. For example,
at the time of sleeping, the mind is pabhassara (transparent), and there are no coarse
defilements. However, delicate defilements, which are called anusaya (underlying
tendencies), such as kämärägänusaya (the underlying tendency to lust for sensual desire)
and avijjänusaya (the underlying tendency to ignorance), are still latent in the
khanda santäna (continuity of aggregates, or “body”). From this theoretical foundation,
they asked Buddhadasa for evidence that the original mind was pure, and asked about
the specifics of his interpretation114. Bunmi, Rabiap and other contributors also
indicated the same points in their articles, and concluded that empty mind was not
taught in the Abhidhamma115, and complained that Buddhadasa had only picked up

111 Phutthathat, Aphitham khu arai?, p. 102.

112 Phutthathat, Aphitham khu arai?, p. 109.
113 Naksuksa phra aphitham (Students of the Abhidhamma; including Sa’nga Suphat, Suphani
Wirawat, Chaluai Phenphaibun, Suchit Sa’nganmu, and Chuai Kannawat), “Samnao chotmai: kho
khongchai khong naksuksa” (A draft of a letter: some students’ worries), To top patthakatha
phutthathat phikkhu, p. 87.
114 Naksuksa phra aphitham, “Samnao chotmai”, pp. 87 - 88.
112 For example, Bunmi Methangkun, “Phra aphithampidok pen bot suksa thi wa duai ruang arai”
212
some phrases from the Tipitaka that could fit well into his ideas, and rejected others116.
Such theoretical arguments about the mind in Abhidhamma were a more
reasonable criticism of Buddhadasa’s controversial remarks. Although Buddhadasa
presented the scriptural basis for his proposal of emptiness and empty mind, which do
appear in part in the Dhammadinna sutta , Culasuhhata sutta , and Mahäsuhhata sutta , they
were apparently not explicitly incorporated into the Abhidhamma theory of mind.
Buddhadasa interpreted the Tipiuika freely in his own way, justifying himself by the
Buddha’s teaching in the Käläma sutta, i.e. not to believe certain ideas merely because of
tradition, a teacher, or scriptures. He did not strictly follow traditional Theraväda exegesis,
starting from the Abhidhammapitaka, atthakathä, tikä, and so forth. Therefore, his
interpretation was criticised as attanomati (personal opinion)119. Abhidhamma should
have provided its proponents with effective weapons for debate in the public sphere.
For the Abhidhamma teachers whose principles were criticised by Buddhadasa,
they had to defend themselves in the Buddhist public sphere. The doctrinal criticism of
Buddhadasa’s statement was a reasonable rebuttal, but some of them went further. Some
Abhidhamma teachers, especially harsh anti-communist propagandists such as
Kittiwuttho and Anan Senankhan, linked Buddhadasa’s teaching to communism even
though no firm evidence was ever brought forward. Also, instead of being an adherent
to the articulated, systematic explanation about states of mind in the Abhidhammapitaka ,

Bunmi’s group was criticised even by other Abhidhamma teachers for his advocating
supematuralism in order to seek the interest of and support from the public “ . The
debates between Buddhadasa and the Abhidhamma groups were not purely concerned
with doctrinal disagreements, but rather reflected a competition for influence in the
Buddhist public sphere.

(What kind of lesson is it to study the Abhidhammapitaka'!), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu,
pp. 115 - 119; and Rabiap, “Kham to top”, pp. 213 - 219.
6 Rabiap, “Kham to top”, p. 222.
117 The Dhammadinna sutta is in Maha-vagga , Samyutta-nikäya, Sutta-pitaka (M. Leon Feer,
Samyutta-nikäya P a r t V Maha-vagga (London: Pali Text Society, 1960), pp. 406 —408).
118 These sutta are in Sunnatävagga, Upahpannäsa, M ajjhim a-nikäya (Robert Charlmers (ed.), The
Maphima-nikaya vol. Ill (London: The Pali Text Society, 1960), pp. 104 - 118).
119 Siri Phetchai, interview.
120 Wannasit, interview.
213
 This chapter has examined the contemporary history of the Abhidhamma
groups in Thailand and their conflict with Buddhadasa. Even though the Abhidhamma
is the traditional exegesis of the Theraväda school, we should understand that the
Abhidhamma groups were marginal rather than standing for “orthodoxy” in the
contemporary Thai context. Their history suggests that Abhidhamma studies were only
recently re-imported from Burma as a new method of doctrinal study. Some lay teachers
of the Abhidhamma in Thailand even expanded traditional Theraväda scholasticism by
incorporating supernaturalism and anti-communist propaganda.
On the other hand, Buddhadasa had developed his studies along the same path
as academic monks in the Thai Sangha, as I have argued in Chapter 1. From 1933
onwards both Buddhadasa and the academic monks at Mahamakut Buddhist University,
who were close to the then Supreme Patriarch and elders, deepened their understanding
of doctrines by translating insightful stories from Pali scriptures into Thai. In this effort,
Buddhadasa’s academic ability was recognised, and his book, Phuttha prawat chakphra
ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words), was adopted as a textbook by Mahamakut
Buddhist University. Buddhadasa had little conflict with elders in the Sangha. By the
time of the conflict with the Abhidhamma groups in 1965, Buddhadasa was already a
well established, respected, senior monastic scholar and intellectual.
Although Buddhadasa did not hold a position in the ecclesiastical
administration, the lay Abhidhamma opponents of Buddhadasa remained in a
comparatively peripheral position in the Thai Buddhist academy. Therefore, they were
vulnerable enough to lose credibility when Buddhadasa said that the Abhidhamma was
not in the form of the Buddha’s own words. Their doctrinal refutations of Buddhadasa’s
understandings on the nature of mind were part of their campaign to discredit
Buddhadasa in order to retain face in the Buddhist public sphere.
It would be too simplistic to say that Buddhadasa and the Abhidhamma groups
were arguing over interpretation versus orthodoxy, or that their views can be categorised
as “progressive” versus “traditional”. The Abhidhamma groups in contemporary
Thailand represented neither of these. Also, it would be difficult to say that Buddhadasa
was setting a standard for the entire Thai Sangha, since he integrated foreign elements
into his thought from other schools of Buddhism, and even other religions. It may be

214
that “orthodoxy” is not absolute in Thai Buddhism and that there is much uncertainty,

often flexibility, although it is more important than some social scientists have argued121.

In order to gain a dominant position in the public sphere, different ideas sometimes

competed with each other by whatever means were available, not just by doctrinal

argument, but also by politically motivated campaigns labelling opponents as

“communist”. Such conflicts that arose were an aspect of doctrinal diversity in the

Buddhist public sphere in twentieth-century Thailand.

121 For example, see A. Thomas Kirsch, “Modernizing implications of 19th century reforms in the
Thai Sangha”, Contributions to Asian studies, Vol. VIII (1975), p. 9.
215
Chapter V Meeting of Marxism and Buddhism: Buddhadasa and his
Marxist followers in 1946 - 1958

Thailand was known as the fortress or would-be ‘last domino’ of communist

penetration into mainland Southeast Asia. Even though Thailand allied with the United
States and actually completed its role to block communism at its border on the
international strategic map, Thailand could never remain immune from communism.
The communist movement reached Thailand from the adjacent Indochinese countries,
as well as from its large domestic Chinese community, a part of which supported the
Chinese Revolution. It is also true that the Thai communist insurgency has never even
scratched the national institutions - the monarchy and the religion, but nothing was
more threatening or challenging than communism in the contemporary history of
Thailand. So few intellectuals could have avoided determining their position vis-ä-vis
communism, or Marxism1. When it came to Thailand, Marxism faced Buddhism, not
only its institutions, but much more significantly, its ideological system, the most
essential intellectual foundation of the Thai people.
Marxism is usually understood as not going together with religion. The famous
phrase of Karl Marx, “Religion is the opium of the people”2, connoted that the people
should not be deluded by the temporary relief that religion offers to their suffering, but
should awake and take action for the political and economic change to achieve real
happiness in their present life. The history of the twentieth century also suggests that in
the communist countries such as the Soviet Union3 and China4 religion was actually

1 In the following discussion, I will use the term, ‘Marxism’, for the theory delivered by Marx, from
which derived both communism and socialism. While I will use the terms, ‘communist’, "... to
describe the parties that accepted violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat as the
means of transition to communism”, and ‘socialism’ to describe “those who rejected it” (Eero Loone,
“Communism” in William Outhwaite and Tom Bottomore (eds.), The Blackwell dictionary of
twentieth-century social thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 98).
2 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law. Introduction”, Karl Marx
and Frederich Engels, Collected works volume 3: Marx and Engels 1843 - 44 (London: Lawrence &
Wishart, 1975), p. 175.
J J. M. Bochenski, “Marxism-Leninism and religion”, Bohdan R. Bociurkiw and John W. Strong
(eds.), Religion and atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe (London: Macmillan Press Ltd.,
1975), pp. 1 - 17.
4 Holmes Welch, Buddhism under Mao (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1972). Although China basically held a negative view about religion, Welch observed that by the
time of the Cultural Revolution the Chinese Communist Party avoided explicit oppression of
religious activities, and occasionally tolerated religious activities depending on the considerations of
216
oppressed or critically examined as an opponent of ideological struggle. Even in the

other Theravada Buddhist countries where the communist party has ever gained control,

communism is well-known for the total destruction of Buddhism in Cambodia under the

Khmer Rouge regime*2*5, and the restrictions placed on religious activities in Laos after

19756. On the other hand, religion has always been utilised as an ideological weapon for

the anti-communist campaign. In Thailand, a radical sermon was given by the monk

leader of a rightist mass organisation, “Killing communists is not demeritorious”7.

domestic political enemies and diplomatic friendship with neighbouring countries in Asia. Welch
referred to a comment by Mao about his attitude toward religions: “Any attempt to deal with
ideological matters or questions involving right and wring by administrative orders or coercive
measures will not only be ineffective but harmful. We cannot abolish religion by administrative
orders; nor can we force people not to believe in it. We cannot compel people to give up idealism,
any more than we can force them to believe in Marxism. In settling matters of an ideological nature
or controversial issues among the people, we can only use democratic methods, methods of
discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, not coercive, high-handed methods” (Mao,
“On the correct handling of contradictions among the people”, New China News Agency English,
June 18, 1957, Chinese Buddhist, 458: 4, cited in Welch, Buddhism under Mao, p. 365).
2 The ultra communist Khmer Rouge utterly destroyed Buddhism according to their logic that the
Buddhist Sangha must be replaced by a better disciplined communist organisation named Angkar
(Charles F. Keyes, “Communist revolution and the Buddhist past in Cambodia”, Charles F. Keyes,
Laurel Kendall, and Helen Hardacre (eds.), Asian visions o f authority: religion and the modern
states o f East and Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994), pp. 43 - 73). Since
1979 the government of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK), which overthrew the Khmer
Rouge with assistance from the Communist Party of Vietnam, supported the restoration of Buddhism.
At first, the PRK government was still attached to Marxist doctrine which regards religion as giving
‘unhealthy belief’, and restricted the age of ordination to above the age fifty by a reason that the
country was not wealthy enough to support monks who depend on people’s offerings. After the
withdrawal of the Vietnamese military in mid-1988, Buddhism recovered its status as the state
religion, and the restriction was abolished.
6 The communists of Laos utilised both Buddhism and the monks during their struggles in 1975.
They claimed that both Buddhism and socialism teach things in common, such as equality,
communal values, and the seeking of an end to human suffering (Martin Stuart-Fox, Buddhist
kingdom, Marxist state: the making o f modern Laos (Bangkok: White Lotus, 1996), p. 79). However,
after the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) established the new communist state in
December 1975, the party no longer made use of Buddhism for ideological propagation, but instead
subordinated Buddhist doctrines and institutions to the Party’s control. According to Stuart-Fox,
“Monks were urged to purge their scriptures of ‘backward’ content, propagate socialist morality,
teach the illiterate to read and write, and provide traditional herbal remedies for the sick.
Monasteries functioned as co-operatives. Monks received a rice ration for their teaching and health
work. But they were expected to grow vegetables and be otherwise self-sufficient, so as not to have
to depend on gifts from the faithful” (Stuart-Fox, Buddhist kingdom, Marxist state, p. 81). Buddhism
was not necessary for the LPRP which put primary emphasis on orthodox Marxist economic reform
and had no concern for a Lao form of socialism until 1979 when they discovered the significance of
Lao identity to counter Vietnamese influence. Buddhist festivals were no longer strictly controlled
and were even encouraged (Stuart-Fox, Buddhist kingdom, Marxist state, pp. 83 - 84).
7 Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, Kha khommiunit mai bap (Killing communists is not demeritorious)
(Bangkok: Mulanithi aphitham mahathat witthayalai, 1976); Charles F. Keyes, “Political crisis and
militant Buddhism in contemporary Thailand”, Bardwell L. Smith (ed.), Religion and legitimation of
power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma (Chambersburg, PA: ANIMA Books, 1978), pp. 147 - 164.
About the political events and their background in the 1970s see David Morell and Chai-anan
Samudavanija, Political conflict in Thailand: reform, reaction, revolution (Cambridge:
217
 However, when in Thailand ethnic Thai Buddhist intellectuals accepted
Marxism for the first time, their attitude towards Buddhism was quite different from the
common formula of Marxism being opposed to religion. A number of leading Marxist
intellectuals were devoted to and came to have discussions with Buddhadasa who had
criticised being attached to the facade of conventional Buddhism as a way to reach the
core of Buddhism. In the sphere of the dhamma, which is the essence of Buddhism that
Buddhists pursue for the full realisation of their life and world, all kinds of people from
outside the monasteries were invited for discussion. Because of Buddhadasa’s
presentation of the dhamma, not only did ordained and lay Buddhist followers come for
further study with Buddhadasa, but even Marxists who felt intellectually inspired by
Buddhadasa came to have discussions with him. Buddhadasa was probably one of the
very few monks who has been respected by, and has associated with, most of the
leading Marxist intellectuals in Thailand. The meeting of Marxism and Buddhism in
Buddhadasa’s discussion of the dhamma was one of the most significant events that
happened in the Buddhist public sphere and in the contemporary intellectual history of
Thailand.
• £
Among the recent studies on Marxism in Thailand , only a few works have
taken Buddhism into account as an ideological issue that Marxism faced in the Thai
cultural context. Reynolds and Hong*89 gave some examples of Thai Marxists who were

Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, Inc., 1981); and Benedict Anderson, “Withdrawal
symptoms”, The spectre of comparison: nationalism, Southeast Asia and the world (London: Verso,
1998), pp. 139 - 173. About the counter-insurgency see Katharine A. Bowie, Rituals of national
loyalty: an anthropology of the state and the village scout movement in Thailand (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1997).
8 For example, Yuangrat Wedel, The Thai radicals and the Communist Party: interaction of
ideology and nationalism in the forest, 1975 - 1980 (Singapore: Maruzen Asia, 1983); Craig
Reynolds, Thai radical discourse: the real face of Thai feudalism today (Ithaca: Cornell Southeast
Asia Program, 1987); Yuangrat Wedel and Paul Wedel, Radical thought, Thai mind: the development
of revolutionary ideas in Thailand (Bangkok: ABAC, 1987); Hong Lysa, “Warasan setthasat
kanmuang critical scholarship in post-1976 Thailand”, Manas Chitakasem and Andrew Turton (eds.),
Thai constructions of knowledge (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London, 1991), pp. 99 - 117; Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism: the formation of modem
Thai radical culture, 1927 - 1958” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1992); Chak Wing David
Tsui, China and the communist armed struggle in Thailand (London: Sangam Books Limited, 1995);
Eiji Murashima, Kanmuang chin sayam: kan-khluan-wai thang kanmuang khong chaw chin phon
thale nai prathet thai kho. So. 1924 - 1941 (Politics of the Chinese in Siam: the political activities of
overseas Chinese in Thailand in 1924 - 1941) (Bangkok: Sun chin suksa, sathaban esia suksa,
chulalongkon mahawitthayalai, 1996), chapter 2. A concise review of the studies of Marxism in
Thailand before 1983 is given by Craig Reynolds and Hong Lysa, “Marxism in Thai historical
studies”, Journal of Asian studies, Vol. XLIII, No. 1 (November 1983), pp. 77 - 104.
9 Reynolds and Hong, “Marxism in Thai historical studies”.
218
arguing with Buddhism in their studies on the Marxist historiography of Thailand.
However, because their study did not specifically pay attention to Marxists’ views about
Buddhism, their samples were not enough to establish clearly the ideological positions
of the Marxists. Wedel10 argued that the Buddhist influence on Thai Marxist thought
was a part of ‘Siamization’, which most clearly appeared in the thought of Pridi
Phanomyong and his disciples. However it cannot be stated that Marxists in Thailand
were solely represented or dominated by Pridi’s Siamized group throughout the
contemporary history of Thailand. Thai Marxists’ views on Buddhism differ depending
on their political and ideological distance from the Communist Party and also have had
different trends and shadings in different periods of time. On the other hand, studies of
Thai Buddhism have hardly taken up the Marxists’ discussions of Buddhism. Some of
these concerns were the sharp political distinction between militant Buddhism opposing
communism and the radicalised movement of the Young Monks (yuwasong) connected
to the Communist Party in the 1970s*
11. In those studies, the peaceful, unpoliticised
mutual intellectual encounter of Buddhism and Marxism by the end of the 1950s was
not within their purview. Another study focused on the shift of Buddhism’s legitimation
from a monarchist establishment to a democratic middle class, without paying any
attention to Marxism, which was one of the most serious ideological challenges to
existing political authority although it was closely associated with Buddhism . In short,
the dialogue between Marxism and Buddhism in Thailand has never been specifically
examined.
In this chapter I am going to demonstrate the intellectual exchanges between
Marxism and Buddhism in the period 1946 - 1958 through the correspondence between
Buddhadasa and his Marxist followers. First, I will present the history of Marxism when
it came to be influential in Thailand (i.e. between 1946 and 1958 under the relatively
liberal political conditions). Secondly, I will examine Buddhadasa’s encounter with
Marxism through Prasoet Sapsunthon, one of the earliest ethnic Thai members of the

10 Yuangrat (Pattanapongse) Wedel, “Modem Thai radical thought: the Siamization of Marxism and
its theoretical problems”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1981.
11 Keyes, “Political crisis and militant Buddhism”; Somboon Suksamran, Buddhism and politics in
Thailand: a study of socio-political change and political activism of the Thai Sangha (Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982).
12 Peter A. Jackson, Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict: the political functions of urban Thai
Buddhism (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989).
219
Communist Party of Thailand. Thirdly, Buddhadasa’s relationship with Marxist
intellectuals and their discovery of the materialist aspect of Buddhism will be explored,
and lastly, the political position of Buddhadasa will be clarified.

1. Prevalence of Marxism in the political setting during 1946 - 1958

In Thailand, people first came into contact with Marxism in the mid-1920s
through the impact of the East Asian communist movements. The Chinese and
Vietnamese communists who came to Thailand even propagated Marxism in Thai,
however, their activities were severely curtailed by successive Thai governments.
Communist ideology was propagated by the Communist Party, but it had hardly reached
the ethnic Thai populace before the end of World War II13.
In the meantime, ethnic Thai intellectuals also acquired Marxist philosophy
outside the influence by the Communist Party of Siam. Pridi Phanomyong (1900 -
1983), who was the theoretical brain of the Constitutional Revolution in 1932, studied
Marxism while he was in France from 1920 to 1927, and adopted it in his economic
plan in 1933. Another prominent Thai Marxist journalist and intellectual, Supha
Sirimanon (1914 - 1986) became interested in Marxism from 1938 when he visited
Japan as a journalist. Supha brought many books on Marxism from Japan14, and later in
1951 he published an exegesis of Marx’s Capital in Thai based on an English text15.
Marxism began penetrating Thai intellectuals who had contact with foreign countries by
the 1930s, but its further propagation was barred by the 1933 anti-communist act, which

13 The early history of the communist movement in Siam is concisely examined in Murashima,
Kanmuang chin say am. According to Murashima’s study, the communist movement of the overseas
Chinese in Siam started in 1924 when the leftist faction established their own organisation against
the general branch of the Chinese Nationalist Party in Siam. In 1929, they started distributing
propaganda leaflets written in Thai in the name of the South Sea Communist Party, Special
Committee in Siam. The Communist Party of Siam was established in 1930 by the overseas Chinese
and Vietnamese members who convened the inaugural meeting called for by Ho Chi Minh. However,
the government enacted the anti-communist act in 1933 when they expelled Pridi Phanomyong for
being a communist who had written an economic plan under the definite influence of Marxism. The
Communist Party of Siam was also severely crushed and destroyed by the government by the late
1930s. The Communist movement was soon restored in 1937 when Japan invaded in China, the
reason was to protest against Japan by organising a movement to boycott trade with it. Under these
political conditions, the Communist Party of Thailand was established at its first Party Convention in
1942. Throughout these communist movements in Thailand before the end of the World War II, it
seems no ethnic Thais took any initiative.
14 Eiji Murashima, Kanmuang chin say am, p. 68.

220
reacted against socialist Pridi’s economic plan.

During the period of 1946 - 1958, there was a relative freedom of expressing

political ideologies in the Thai public sphere. The period between 1946 and 1958 can be

characterised by three subdivided periods according to the governments’ policy towards

communism: (1) 1946 - 1950, (2) 1950 - 1954, and (3) 1955 - 195816. Even though

Phibun’s government toughened its attitude toward communist activities by developing

an alliance with the United States during 1950 - 1954, throughout the period from 1946

to 1958 the Thais retained various diplomatic choices in international politics. Because

of the flexible possibilities, knowledge of Marxism prevailed among Thai intellectuals

during the post-World War II period.

After World War II, under the leadership of Regent Pridi Phanomyong,

Marxism was tolerated. He was a socialist civilian politician, who had organised the

anti-Japanese Free Thai Movement, which in turn permitted Thailand to escape from

being internationally sanctioned as an allied nation of the defeated Japan. In 1946,

Prasoet Sapsunthon, an MP who was elected as a member of the Democrat Party but

resigned from Party membership after only six months, submitted a draft private bill to

abolish the 1933 Anti-Communist Act. Prasoet’s proposal was approved in parliament

in September 1946. This approval was partly because the abolishment of the

Anti-Communist Act was also a condition laid down by the Soviet Union in exchange

for Thailand’s admission to the United Nation . After the mysterious death of King

15 Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying M arxism...”, pp. 16 - 17.

16 In Fineman’s study on political and diplomatic history after Phibun’s returning coup in November
1947 to Phibun’s downfall in 1958, he divided the period into four using the Thai relationship with
the United States: 1947 - 1948; 1948 - 1950; 1950 - 1954; 1955 - 1958 (Daniel Fineman,T special
relationship: the United States and military government in Thailand, 1947 - 1958 (Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press, 1997). In terms of effects on the freedom to express Marxist ideologies,
I consider 1950 and 1955 to be the most significant divisions of this period. In Kasian’s analysis on
post-World War II communist activities, he divided the period between 1945 and 1958 into three: (1)
1945 _ 1947, (2) 1948 - 1952, and (3) 1952 - 1958 (Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism...”,
pp. 269). Kasian considered the fall of the Pridi-Free Thai regime in 1947 as the end of relative
tolerance toward communists. However, if we look at the control of communist ideology, the Phibun
coup government was not tough toward communism until the beginning of the Cold War in Asia.
Also, the Anti-Communist Act in 1952 affected the Communist Party’s activities and forced them to
be recognised, as Kasian argued, but the enforcement of the Act in the public sphere became less
serious after 1955 when the Thai government contacted Communist China at the Bandung
Conference. In terms of the government’s control of and tolerance toward Marxist speech, the
attitude of the government toughened during 1950 and 1954, in which are included the massive
arrests of the participants in the Peace Committee.
17 Anuson nai ngan phra racha than phloeng sop: nai prasoet sapsunthon (Commemoration for the
cremation: Mr. Prasoet Sapsunthon) (2 April 1995), p. (8); Prasoet Patthamasukhon, Ratthasapha
221
Rama VIII in June 1946, Pridi and his group were accused by opposition groups of
responsibility for the incident, and they were finally expelled from the government in
November 1947 by a military coup. Those coup leaders had been discontented by the
marginalized role of the military in parliamentary politics. However, the political
conditions were not antagonistic to Marxist discourse even after the downfall of Pridi.
Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram, who regained power afterwards, in the late 1940s
was even supportive of the Indochinese independence movement against France.
Thailand did not take on its pro-American, anti-communist policy until the Chinese
Revolution in October 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 by which
the Cold War became intensified in Asia18.
The control over domestic communist activities began to be strengthened after
the Thai military’s declaration in September 1950 to send troops to Korea on the side of
the UN force. In 1951 Pridi’s group of socialists also lost its power by the unsuccessful
Manhattan coup against ihe Phibun regime, and by the Phibun coup that overthrew both
the parliament and the constitution that underpinned the system of parliamentary
democracy. Both communists and Pridi’s group of socialists were totally suppressed by
the arrest of the Peace Committee members and its associates in November 1952. The
Peace Committee of Thailand had begun operating in Thailand after the meeting of the
International Peace Committee in Stockholm in 1950 under the guidance of the Soviet
Union. The Peace Committee of Thailand incorporated a number of leading Thai
intellectuals who were critical of the Thai’s participation in the Korean War, and they
organised a campaign that collected signatures to oppose it19. Along with the Peace
Committee’s arrest, the Anti-Communist Act was again proclaimed on 13 November
1952 and enforced on the next day. The anti-communist mood in Thailand was further
heightened by Thailand becoming the headquarters of the Southeast Asia Treaty

thai nai rop 42 pi (Forty-two years of the Thai Parliament) (Bangkok: Ratthakit seri, 1974), p. 557.
18 Eiji Murashima, “1940 nen dai ni okeru tai no shokuminchi taisei dakkyakuka to indoshina no
dokuritsu undo: tai futsuin funso kara reisen no kaishi made” (Thailand’s ‘decolonisation’ of its
system and the Indochinese independence movement in the 1940s: from the Thai-French Indochina
conflict to the beginning of the Cold War), Masaya Shiraishi, Eiji Murashima et.al., Betonamu to tai
(Vietnam and Thailand) (Tokyo: Daimeido, 1998), p. 190.
19 The Peace movement was organised by the Soviet Union after 1949, and the detailed theory was
published by Stalin as Economic problem of socialism in 1952. (David Wilson, “China, Thailand and
the spirit of Bandung (Part I)”, The China quarterly No. 30 (April - June 1967), p. 155). About the
Peace Committee of Thailand, see Wiwat Catithammanit, Kabot santhiphap (Peace [Committee’s]
revolt) (Bangkok: Khrongkan chat phim khop fai, 1996).
222
Organisation (SEATO) in 195420.
However, international detente went on into the mid-1950s, and Thailand
became tolerant of Marxist ideologies and communist countries. After returning from a
world tour in June 1955, Phibun placed emphasis on his policy of democratising the
country. He legalised political parties, enhanced press freedom, and encouraged ‘Hyde
Parks’ or the public discussion of politics" . Thailand sent a representative to the
Afro-Asian Conference at Bandung in April 1955, and recognised the international
significance of Communist China in the region. After that, Phibun sent a secret mission
in order to seek an opportunity to restore diplomatic relations with Communist China22.
Even under the Anti-Communist Act, certain freedom of speech and of the press was
allowed until Sarit’s ‘revolution’ in October 1958.
In these relatively tolerant political conditions from 1946 to 1958, a lot of
ethnic-Thai intellectuals had an opportunity to learn about Marxism outside the
influence of the Communist Party of Thailand. Activities and expressions of opinion
based on Marxist ideology flourished during this period. For example, Prasoet
Sapsunthon, who successfully proposed the abolition of the 1933 Anti-Communist Act
in September 1946, legally stood for the Communist Party in the National Assembly
until Phibun’s coup in November 194723. There were also many Marxist writings
produced by Thai Marxists, these were distributed in the Thai public sphere during this
period. Supha Sirimanon’s journal, Aksonsan24, which was published from April 1949
to October 1952, and Chit Phumisak’s writings25 (most intensively produced until
1958), were well-known examples of those. Buddhadasa also came into contact with
Marxist ideology during this time as well as with other Thai intellectuals.

20 David K. Wyatt, Thailand: a short history (Chiangmai: Silkworm books, 1982, 1984), pp. 260 -
275.
21 David Wilson, “China, Thailand and the spirit of Bandung (Part I)”, p. 99. Ari and Kanina were
members o f this secret delegation to China.
22 Fineman, A special relationhip, p. 224; Ari Phirom, Thai-chin (Thailand-China) (Bangkok:
Mitranara kanphim, 1981), p. 51; Karuna Kusalasai, Chiwit thi luak mai dai (Life without choice)
(Bangkok: Mae kham phang, 1986,1997), p. 204.
23 Anuson nai ngan phra racha than phloeng sop nai prasoet sapsunthon (Commemoration for the
cremation: Mr. Prasoet Sapsunthon) (2 April 1995), p. (8). Kasian, “Commodifying Marxism...”, pp.
135 - 136, 557.
24 Aksonsan is examined in Kasian, “Commodifying Marxism...”, pp. 449 - 494.
25 About Chit Phumisak’s life and one of his most famous works, see Craig Reynolds, Thai radical

223
2. Buddhadasa and Prasoet Sapsunthon: Buddhists meet Marxism

In Buddhadasa’s encounter with Marxism, Prasoet Sapsunthon (1913 - 1994)

had the most significant role. Prasoet, who was once a communist and who then

converted to become an anti-communist military advisor26, was not only the first person

who introduced Marxist thought to Buddhadasa, but also a friend who brought

discussion of this new ideology to the already critical-minded monk. Their early

intellectual correspondence seems to have contributed to make both of them unique in

their respective fields - religion and politics.

In about 1936"7 Buddhadasa heard of Marxism for the first time from Prasoet

Sapsunthon. Prasoet was from the same province as Buddhadasa, Surat Than!28, and

Buddhadasa got to know young Prasoet as a temple boy (<dek wat) at Wat Rachathiwat

in Bangkok" . It seems that Buddhadasa was introduced to Prasoet because Buddhadasa

had an uncle ordained as a monk at Wat Rachathiwat, where Prasoet boarded30. At first,

Prasoet was not interested in politics, but was rather a Buddhist poet when he was a

student at Chulalongkom University. Prasoet should be considered as a highly educated

intellectual amongst his contemporaries because he had experience as editor of a

university journal, and he belonged to the first generations which received the bachelor

discourse: the real face of Thai feudalism today (Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program, 1994).
26 Prasoet Sapsunthon (1913 - 1994) intellectually supported the strategies of military politicians
from Thanom Kittikhachon until Chaowarit Yongchaiyut {Anuson prasoet sapsunthon, p. (10)).
Prasoet was the one who systematised Prachatipatai baep thai (Thai way of democracy) in the
1960s (Eiji Murashima, “Tai ni okeru seiji taisei no shuki teki tenkan: gikai sei minshushugi to
gunbu no seiji kainyu” (The periodical cycle of the political regime in Thailand: parliamentary
democracy and military intervention in politics), Yoshiyuki Hagiwara and Eiji Murashima (eds.),
ASEAN shokhoku no seiji taisei (The political regime in the ASEAN states) (Tokyo: Ajia keizai
kenkyu sho, 1987), pp. 151 - 153). Later, it was also Prasoet who systematised theoretically the draft
of the constitution by the military, supposedly in the name of democracy in 1983 (Murashima, “Tai
ni okeru seiji taisei no shuki teki tenkan”, p. 171).
27 Buddhadasa said that it was right after Prasoet graduated from the Faculty of Arts at
Chulalongkom University, and Prasoet was still boarding at Wat Rachathiwat Temple when Prasoet
talked about the theory of communism (Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, Lao wai mua wai sonthaya:
atchiwaprawat khong than phutthathat (Talking in the age of twilight: an autobiography of Ven.
Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1988), p. 340). According to the cremation
volume of Prasoet, he graduated from Chulalongkom University in 1936. {Anuson Prasoet
Sapsunthon, p. (7).) Buddhadasa recalled that Prasoet was not totally devoted to communist ideas at
that time (Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 340).
28 Anuson Prasoet Sapsunthon, p. (7).
29 Prasoet was a temple boy at that temple from when he was an eight-year-old schoolboy until he
graduated from Chulalongkom University {Anuson Prasoet Sapsunthon, p. (7)).
30 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 377.
224
of arts degree from Chulalongkorn University. The initial relationship between Prasoet
and Buddhadasa was mainly based on exchanges of religious ideas as shown in their
surviving correspondence.
There are fourteen letters between Prasoet Sapsunthon and Buddhadasa
conserved in the Suan Mokkh Archives. Those fourteen letters include thirteen from
Prasoet to Buddhadasa and one from Buddhadasa to Prasoet, the date range is from
October 1941 to January 1972jl. The relationship between the two suggested in their
letters is one of high regard and respect towards Buddhadasa from Prasoet, and a wish
on his part to share his intellectual enthusiasm with a young, competent monk who was
only seven years older. In the first six letters between Prasoet and Buddhadasa up to
December 1944j2, the subjects are, Prasoet’s article contributed to the journal,
Phutthasasana, hiring a tutor for Buddhadasa’s English lessons, and some concepts in
Eastern philosophy and Buddhism in general. After August 1942, Prasoet expressed his
interest in his own election campaign and political activities^, standing for parliament
as a representative of Buddhists who were abstaining from the four vices (in Pali,
apäyamukha: drinking, gambling, frequenting prostitutes, and keeping bad company).
However, in his letters up to January 1946, Prasoet did not bring up Marxism in his
discussion with Buddhadasa. It seems that Prasoet’s full conversion to Marxism was not
until January 1946 after he won the election, although he seems to have known of
Marxism since 1936 when he talked about communism with Buddhadasa34.
Prasoet became an adherent of Marxism by September 1946, when he proposed
in the parliament the abolition of the Anti-Communist Act35. After its successful
abolition, Prasoet planned to establish his own Communist Party, which had nothing to
do with the existing Communist Party of Thailand. When Prasoet found out about the
more substantial communist party in Thailand, he applied for membership, which was

31 The letters from Prasoet to Buddhadasa are dated: 8 October 1941, 24 July 1942, 26 August 1942,
31 July 1944, 22 December 1944, 8 January 1945, 5 October 1945, 15 January 1946, 22 November
1946, 3 September 1947, 3 May 1948, 1 November 1948, and 3 January 1972. The letter from
Buddhadasa to Prasoet is dated 2 December 1944.
32 The six letters are dated: 8 October 1941, 24 July 1942, 26 August 1942, 31 July 1944, and 22
December 1944.
33 Prasoet’s wish appeared in his letters to Buddhadasa dated 26 August 1942, 8 January 1945, 5
October 1945, and 15 January 1946.
34 See p. 221.
35 Anuson Prasoet Sapsunthon, p. 8.
225
approved in December 1946. Prasoet seems to have been one of the first ethnic Thais to
become a member and an executive office holder of the Communist Party of Thailand
(CPT), which had been established by ethnic Chinese in Thailand. In this position,
Prasoet became the first, and only, MP who openly stood for the Communist Party of
Thailand until the November 1947 coup that overthrew the Thamrong regime. In May
1949 the Party selected and sent Prasoet to China for further study of
Marxism-Leninism. In 1952 Prasoet was appointed as a member of the Central
Committee of the CPT, and remained in China until August 1959 when he resigned
from the Party.
In his letters written up to his departure for China36, the communist Prasoet
enthusiastically tried to persuade Buddhadasa about Marxist ideology, and he mentions
that he has sent to Buddhadasa some books about Marxism, such as The communist
manifesto and Dialectical materialism. Although now a converted communist, Prasoet
did not urge Buddhadasa to abandon or to deny the Buddhist religion, instead Prasoet
drew Buddhadasa’s attention to Marxist perspectives found in his Buddhist teachings.
Prasoet seems to have believed that the Marxist perspective would also contribute to a
reform in religion. Prasoet criticised current Buddhist practices, which had already
diverged from the original ones, for not contributing to the betterment of people’s life.
Their religion did not teach self-sacrifice, but people expected rewards for their good
deeds as a matter of course. Prasoet said that it was only Buddhadasa who could revive
a concept of self-sacrifice in the Buddhist religion37. Prasoet promoted a religion that
helped people in their everyday, worldly life. He rephrased Marx’s holistic theoretical
compound of philosophy, economics and political science in a Buddhist expression, “the
world and the dhamma should go together”. The dhamma or the truth in Buddhism does
not exist in an external, other world, but exists for the world to be happy. Prasoet
insisted that true morality should be pursued in a country which is nobly Buddhist, but
which in fact, instead of morality, was filled with injustice that goes against the teaching
of the Buddha. The true morality of a religion is found in poor people who maintain the
religion by their daily offerings to monks, rather than in someone who is in a position to

36 Those letters of Prasoet included the ones dated 22 November 1946, 3 September 1947, 3 May
1948, and 1 November 1948.
37 Prasoet Sapsunthon, letter to Buddhadasa, 3 September 1947, Suan Mokkh Archives.
226
exploit others, by which Prasoet was implying the monks. Thus, he concluded, it is

suitable for religion to do practices which benefit poor people - that is true morality

with mettä (sympathetic love) and karunä (compassion)38.

In the Suan Mokkh Archives, there are no replies from Buddhadasa about

Prasoet’s proposals to apply Marxist views toward religion-39. With the sources I

consulted, it is difficult to judge the nature and extent of the impact on Buddhadasa of

the Marxism introduced by Prasoet during the latter half of the 1940s. According to

Buddhadasa’s interview with Phra Pracha in the m id-1980s40, Buddhadasa was

interested in Marxism or communism because, as a Buddhist monk, he felt that he had

to know about Marxism, which was regarded as an enemy of Buddhism41. In any case,

Prasoet’s suggestions possibly acted as a stimulus for the intellectual monk, Buddhadasa.

For Thai Buddhists, the concept of kamma has been one of the most basic views on life,

they were hardly critical of it. For them there was no occasion to question their

expectation of a reward for their good deeds, of course this tends to be egotistical and

for self-benefit. Buddhadasa’s emphasis in his later teachings on ‘not being egotistical’

possibly has its roots in a Marxist perspective that consistently gives priority to society

and the people as a whole, rather than to individual comfort deriving from class

advantage. The teachings of ‘non-egoism’ (khwam-mai-hen-kae-tua), ‘self-sacrifice’

(sia sala), and ‘usefulness for society’ (prayot to sangkhom or suan ruam) have

commonalities with Marxism. These concepts could be a Marxist perspective that

Buddhadasa adopted into his own system of thought.

A few years after the last correspondence with Prasoet, Buddhadasa gave a

38 Prasoet Sapsunthon, letter to Buddhadasa, 3 May 1948, Suan Mokkh Archives.

39 Buddhadasa usually kept a copy of his own letters to his friends and disciples, and collected them
together with his friends’ letters to him. These letters were recently all filed by his disciples, and
they are available for access, with appropriate permission.
40 According to Pracha, he did his interview with Buddhadasa between 1984 and 1986 (Pracha
Hutanuwat, interview, Bangkok, 1 May 1999).
41 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 337, 564. Buddhadasa seems to have had a certain degree of interest
in Marxism as far as we can find from his comments on Marxism in his interview by Phara Pracha.
Buddhadasa himself had even bought a book on communism from the Home Library series in order
to give it to Maha Thongsup, his friend at the Mahamakut Buddhist University. Buddhadasa wanted
to see how Maha Thongsup reacted to it, because at that time communism was novel and known as
an enemy of Buddhism. Buddhadasa said that he had read the book on communism in the Home
Library series, but he understood only some parts since the ideas were still too new for him (Phra
Pracha, Lao wai..., pp. 301 - 302).
227
sermon entitled, “Buddhism and society”42, as a regular evening session for fellow

monks spending the rain retreat in September 1952. This was only two months before

the massive arrest of Marxist intellectuals in the Peace Committee, who were accused of

being communists. In this context of increasing concern with social issues among Thai

intellectuals, Buddhadasa sought to delineate the social dimensions of Buddhism, and

especially the social benefit of monks who renounced worldly society. In the sermon,

Buddhadasa contrasted the social benefit of those who have not reached arah an tsh ip

and those who have already attained a ra h a n tsh ip . Those who have not reached

a ra h a n tsh ip attempt to benefit society only within the scope of the social contract of

their own rights and duties. Since they are still under the rule of kilesa (defilements),

they can only think of returning their social debt as much as they have received from

others in society. On the other hand, an arahant provides benefits to society with mettä

(loving compassion) and pahhä (wisdom) without being restricted in the scope of the

equal reciprocal exchange of the social contract. An arahant only benefits others,

especially with the dhammadäna (offering of d h a m m a ) that raises people’s spirituality, but

expects no return43. It is too simplistic to infer that all these social aspects of Buddhism

found in Buddhadasa’s ideas come from the influence of Prasoet and Marxism, but their
written correspondence at least gave hints from which Buddhadasa could further
develop his own Buddhist view on society.

It seems that Buddhadasa’s intellectual interest in Marxism did not last long.

As soon as Buddhadasa learned that Karl Marx claimed that religion was opium, he lost

interest in Marxism. He thought that Marx’s ideology could not be his foundation since

Marx never learnt Buddhism properly. Buddhadasa argued that if Marx had ever

understood true Buddhism, he would have known that Buddhism was not an opium, but

42 Phra Ariyananthamuni (the then ecclesiastical title of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), “Phutthasasana kap
sangkhom” (Buddhism and society), Phutthasasana Vol. 29 No. 3 - 4 (August - November 1961),
pp. 60 - 76. The same sermon was published by Mahachulalongkhon Buddhist University in 1956 in
order to congratulate nine monks who had been elevated to ecclesiastical titles in that year
(Phutthathat Phikkhu, Phutthasasana kap sangkhom (Bangkok: Khana kammakan
mahachulalongkon ratchawitthayalai, 1956)). This sermon of Buddhadasa seems to have been
chosen for that occasion, probably because of the increasing concerns with social aspects of
Buddhism among the monks in Wat Mahathat, in which premises the Buddhist University is located.
There were several monks who had been involved in the Peace Committee movement and who had
been arrested in 1952 at Wat Mahathat.
43 Phra Ariyananthamuni, “Phutthasasana kap sangkhom”, p. 73.
228
a victory over opium, for example over such things as supernatural beliefs (saiyasat)44.

Buddhadasa’s initial interest in Marxism had to end with Sarit’s coup in 1958, which

strictly banned communism. Buddhadasa had to give up all his books on communism,

which was by then a large pile including those in Thai and European languages by

various authors, to his lawyer friend, Piu Premadittha. Buddhadasa decided to abandon

those books so as not to be accused of being a communist43.

In the meantime, while he was in China, Prasoet Sapsunthon had an ideological

dispute with the Communist Party executives who were of Chinese origin and of

pro-Chinese sentiment. Although Prasoet became a member of the central committee of

the Party in 1952, he did not agree with two issues of the Party’s policies. First, in 1952

Prasoet argued that it was necessary to form a united front with Pridi Phanomyong’s

group of Thai Marxist intellectuals for the success of the revolution in Thailand, but his

opinion was rejected. Second, Prasoet again argued with the Party executives in early

1958 by proposing a peaceful strategy to take office through a parliamentary majority

after he was influenced by Khrushchev’s idea of a non-violent path to socialism. Prasoet

lost both of these ideological disputes, and was accused of being elitist and of

neglecting the rural masses46. Although leftists tend to be sceptical of Prasoet, who left
the Party and became a military advisor after his release from six years of imprisonment
in 1963, the issue of non-violence or ahimsä was something that the younger radicals

also faced in their struggle in the 1970s. Even after becoming a military adviser, Prasoet

proposed “intellectual strategies” to combat the communists instead of military methods.

At his suggestion, the military promoted public welfare in the poor rural Northeastern

region in order to prevent communist penetration, and at the same time, through this

method, the military could expect a return in future when they stood for election. It

could partly be a Buddhist element within Prasoet that he chose a non-violent path of

social reform through what Buddhadasa had been emphasised, pannä, or wisdom to

distinguish the right thing to do.

The relationship between Buddhadasa and Prasoet did not develop beyond

intellectual exchanges to become a political one. Buddhadasa said in his interview with

44 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 544 - 545.

45 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., pp. 337 - 338.
46 Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism...”, pp. 404 - 406, 558.
229
Phra Pracha that Prasoet never asked him to join in communist political activities, nor

did he invite him for the anti-communist campaign after his conversion47. Buddhadasa

never became a communist, but seems to have gained an idea of it through

communication with Prasoet; on the other hand, Prasoet, whatever he was - either a

communist or a military adviser, did not give up the Buddhist perspectives he gleaned

from the core of Buddhism presented by Buddhadasa. Their early intellectual exchanges

implicitly benefited each of them in their respective realms of intellectual activities in

later life48.

3. Intellectual exchanges between Buddhadasa and Thai Marxist intellectuals: is

Buddhism materialism or idealism?

Apart from Prasoet Sapsunthon, Buddhadasa associated with a number of

famous Marxist intellectuals during 1946 - 1958. In a relatively liberal political

environment during this post war period, those Thai intellectuals were able to absorb

Marxism without contradicting their religion, and even equated their new ideology with

Buddhism. Among other prominent Marxist intellectuals, here I am going to examine

three of the most respected Marxists who had close contacts with Buddhadasa: Pridi
Phanomyong, Kulap Saipradit, and Samak Burawat49, and their unique understanding of

47 Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 340.

48 About an aspect of Prasoet’s thought after becoming a military advisor, see his discussion with
Sawai Kaewsom in Chapter II, p. 124.
49 Apart from these three, probably Supha Sirimanon (1914 - 1986) and Chit Phumisak (1930 -
1966) were also important Thai Marxist intellectuals. In fact, both Supha and Chit had read
Buddhadasa’s works although their contact with Buddhadasa was much less than that of Pridi, Kulap
and Samak, or they possibly never met Buddhadasa. According to Phra Pracha, who gave a public
lecture at Supha’s cremation ceremony, Supha was a Marxist journalist, and at the same time, a pious
Buddhist who used to make merit at Wat Phra Kaew, and who always followed the works of
Buddhadasa (Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, “Phutthasasana kap khwam-yuttitham thang sangkhom”
(Buddhism and justice in society), Pacharayasan, Vol. 13 No. 4 (September - October 1986), p.
114). Chit Phumisak also mentioned that some monks such as Panyanantha and Buddhadasa agreed
with his understanding of Buddhism. According to Sutcharit Satchawichan, Chit referred to
Panyanantha’s sermon, “Thammakatha ruang phra phutthasasana thi thae” (Dhamma phrases about
the true Buddhism), and Buddhadasa’s, “Silapphattaparamat” (Pali: Silabbataparamasa) in his draft
of the famous speech on Buddhism at the 23 October incident of “throwing on to the ground”
(ikarani yon bok 23 Tula) (Sutcharit Satchawichan, “Phuttha pratchaya nai thatsana ‘nakhon that’”
(Buddhist philosophy in the view of ‘city slave’), Aksonsatphichan, Vol. 3 No. 11 - 12 (April - May
1976), p. 50). Chit’s speech was published as: Nakhon that (City Slave; pseud. Chit Phumisak),
“Phuttha pratchaya kae saphap sangkhom trong kilet, watthuniyom daialektik kae saphap thi tua
sangkhom eng, mi chai patirup tarn baep khong sitthantha, pratchaya watthuniyom daialektik kap
pratchaya khong sitthantha phit kan yang chakan thi trong ni” (Buddhist philosophy solves social
230
‘materialism’ which came about as a result of their inquiry into both Marxism and

Buddhism.

Pridi Phanomyong (1900 - 1983) was an important political figure who was

the civilian leader of the 1932 Constitutional Revolution, the leader of the Free Thai

movement, the Regent of King Rama VIII, and Prime Minister, he was interested in

Buddhadasa’s teachings and activities.

The most remarkable fact that indicates Pridi’s concern about Buddhadasa’s

teaching is his plan to establish a Suan Mokkh style meditation centre in 1943 while still

in power. When his mother, Lukchan passed away, Pridi came up with a plan to donate

3,000 baht to make merit for her by establishing a place for vipassanä meditation practice

at Wat Phanomyong in Ayutthaya province, to which his family had given patronage for

a long time. Pridi wished to invite a meditation master from Suan Mokkh, and to have

Buddhadasa as an advisor for scholarly studies^0. Between 9 January and 1 March

194351 Pridi personally invited Buddhadasa to his official residence through Wut

Suwannarak, who was an MP from Surat Thani province and also a relative of

Buddhadasa52. Pridi discussed with Buddhadasa three times about his plan to found a

place for dhamma practice in the style of Suan Mokkh in his home province in order to

propagate the essential teachings of Buddhism. Buddhadasa introduced to Pridi his

junior fellow monks, such as Bo. Cho. KhemaphiraP3 and Panyanantha Bhikkhu34, to

work for the dhamma preaching at the new place. However, the project had to be

problems at the place of defilement, while the philosophy of dialectical materialism solves it in
society itself unlike the reform by Siddhartha: the philosophy of dialectical materialism and the
philosophy of Siddhartha are totally different in this sense.), Chit Phumisak (Samnakphim nok huk
ed.), Karani ‘yon bok’ 23 tula (The 23 October incident of ‘throwing onto the ground’) (Samnak­
phim nok huk, 1986), pp. 27 - 45. This article of Chit was translated by Craig J. Reynolds as: City
Slave, “Phi tong luang/ The spirit of yellow leaves” (For the Echols Collection, Olin Library, Cornell
University, 1980).
50 A letter from Pridi’s personal secretary to Buddhadasa on 9 January 1943, Suan Mokkh Archives.
51 There is a letter from Pridi’s personal secretary to Buddhadasa on 9 January 1943 to inform
Buddhadasa about this plan. In his letter to Regent Pridi on 1 March 1943 Buddhadasa discussed the
selection of the place for dhamma practice in Ayutthaya because Wat Phanomyong was not large
enough (A letter from Buddhadasa to Regent Pridi Phanomyong on 1 March 1943, Suan Mokkh
Archives). Buddhadasa and Pridi met to discuss the plan sometime between these two pieces of
correspondence.
52 Wut Suwannarak (A cremation volume for Wut Suwannnarak, 1 March 1998), p. 51.
53 A letter from Buddhadasa to Pridi on 1 March 1943.
1,4 Phra Thammakosachan (Panyanantha Phikkhu), Phutthathat khu khrai, than tham arai (Who is
Buddhadasa? What did he do?) (Bangkok: Mulanithi phra dulayaphaksuwaman-chaluai-thiphawan
patthamassathan, 1998), pp. 23 - 24. Arun Wetchasuwan, Rattha burut awuso pridi phanomyong
(Senior Statesman Pridi Phanomyong) (Bangkok: Arunwithaya, 1983, 1999), p. 211.
231
abolished because they could not find a suitable forest or mountain for dhamma practice

in Ayutthaya55, and Pridi had to go into exile after the coup in November 194756.

Although the Ayutthaya-Suan Mokkh project was not actualised, Pridi’s respect

for Buddhadasa lasted from their first correspondence until Pridi’s death. In 1943 Pridi

made donations to publish Buddhadasa’s article, “Answering the questions of a Catholic

priest” as a propagation booklet . He also offered money to support the journal

Phutthasasana, and offered books to the Khana Thammathan’s library58. Also, Pridi

officially attended Buddhadasa’s lecture entitled, “Buddha-Dhamma and the spirit of

democracy” at the Buddhist Association of Thailand in January 194759. Later in the

1970s while in Paris where he chose to spend the latter half of his life in exile, Pridi

again intended to establish a temple in the style of Suan Mokkh, which he meant not to

be an ordinary ritualistic temple60. However, the plan did not come to fruition because

53 In the letter from Buddhadasa to Pridi on 1 March 1943, Buddhadasa wrote that it was difficult to
find a good forest in Ayutthaya, and suggested a new place on the Phu Khao Thong mountain, which
is quite far from Wat Phanomyong. In Buddhadasa’s letter to Pho. Siriwat, Pridi’s secretary, on 20
June 1943, Buddhadasa wrote that monks in Ayutthaya who were supposed to be in charge of the
project had not contacted him (Buddhadasa, letter to Pho. Siriwat, 20 June 1943, Suan Mokkh
Archives). Pridi might have given up this plan because it was then that Pridi’s political role became
more important as the leader of the Free Thai movement because the Japanese attacked the allied
powers in mid-1943. Or, Pridi might not have been happy to establish dhamma practice in place
other than Wat Phanomyong of which he was a patron.
56 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 402 - 403. Phra Thammakosachan, Phutthathat khu khrai, than
tham arai, pp. 23 - 24. Arun Wetchasuwan, Rattha burut awuso pridi phanomyong, p. 211. Wani
Saipradit (Pridi’s daughter), interview by the author, Bangkok, 12 October 1998.
5' According to a letter of 7 June 1943 from Phoem Siriwat, a personal secretary of the Regent Pridi,
to Buddhadasa, Pridi selected this article for a cremation volume for Leng Sisamuang’s father. Leng,
who was a member of the People’s Party and the manager of the Siam Commercial Bank at that time,
asked Pridi to sponsor publishing the cremation volume for his father (Phoem Siriwat, letter to
Buddhadasa, 7 June 1943, Suan Mokkh Archives).
58 The details about Pridi’s contributions to Buddhadasa’s journal and his group are in
Phutthasasana, vol. 11 (1943). This information is also cited in Arun Wetchasuwan, Rattha burut
awuso pridi phanomyong, p. 208.
39 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p. 322. In Phra Pracha’s interview, Buddhadasa said that in the lecture a
special seat was arranged for Pridi as the Regent of the King Rama VIII, but either the lecture date or
Pridi’s position was mistaken. Pridi was Regent between 16 December 1941 and 15 December 1945,
and he was the Prime Minister from 24 March - 9 May 1946; 8 - 9 June 1946; and 10 June - 20
August 1946. In the time of the lecture in January 1947 Pridi was still an influential patron of the
Thamrong regime, although he had stepped down from the Prime Ministership because of the
mysterious death of King Rama VIII on 9 June 1946. Pridi’s political power was ended by the
military coup that overthrew the Thamrong regime on 8 November 1947. The coup also made him
an exile from his country (Pridi Phanomyong, Chiwaprawat yo khong nai pridi phanomyong (A
short biography of Mr. Pridi Phanomyong) (Mulanithi Pridi Phanomyong, 1983,1992)).
60 This project was in process in October 1970 when Phra Maha Sathianphong Punyawanno visited
England. Phra Maha Sathianphong attended Pridi’s lecture at the Samakkhi Samakhom speaking
about this project to establish a Thai Buddhist temple in France. Pridi invited Pantarato Bhikkhu
(Phra Kramon Chonlasuk) in England to wait until the temple would be ready in France. However,
Pantarato Bhikkhu passed away before the temple was prepared (Phra Maha Sathianphong
232
he could not gain enough support from the local Thai residents61. Phunsuk, or Pridi’s
wife, asserts that Pridi respected Buddhadasa and Panyanantha throughout his life, and
he kept a booklet of Buddhadasa, K otbat khong ph u tth a borisat (The Buddhist Charter)
in his pocket even at the moment of his death02.
A product of the dialogue between Buddhism and Marxism in Pridi’s thought
is most apparent in his book, K hw am -pen-anitchang khong sangkhom (Impermanence
of society), which was written in 1957 during his exile in Mao’s China. Although in
1933 Pridi had already had the idea of a Buddhist utopia (phra si araya m ettrai) as the
goal of his socialistic economic plan63, his expression of views on Marxism and
Buddhism seems to have been theoretically more elaborated after his detailed study of
Marxism in China.
In the book, Pridi expressed his distinctive view on the theory of materialism as
a Buddhist intellectual. First, he regarded the Buddhist law of impermanence as valid in
the case of society because both a Buddhist prophecy and historical materialism suggest
that the conflict arising from the immoral, oppressive relationship of production brings
about a new social and political system.
Secondly, in order to express his characteristic understandings of materialism
better, Pridi translated materialism into Thai as ‘sa sa ra th a m ,64, which is distinguished
from both 'w a tth u -n iyo m ' and ‘n iyo m -w a tth u ’65. Pridi rejected ‘w a tth u -n iyo m ’ or rigid

Punyawanno, “Than pridi sang wat thai nai pari” (Pridi builds a Thai temple in Paris), Chut suan
thuang (The centre of gravity) (Bangkok: Hang hun suan chamkat, 1972), pp. 125 - 133).
61 Wani Saipradit, interview.
62 Wani Saipradit, interview. Wani learnt this story from Than Phuying Phunsuk Phanomyong,
Pridi’s wife and Wani’s mother. Phunsuk exhibited the book by Buddhadasa as ‘the most favourite
book of Than Pridi’ at the opening exhibition of the Pridi Phanomyong Library at Thammasat
University on 27 June 1998.
63 Yuangrat Wedel, “Modem Thai Radical Thought”, pp. 6 3 -8 5 .
64 See chapter 5 “Samutthan khong manut lae manutsaya sangkhom” (Origins of human beings and
human society) in Pridi Phanomyong, Khwam-pen-anitchang khong sangkhom (Bangkok: Warasan
mo khwam-yuttitham, 1988).
65 In Thai, sasara means ‘materials’ and -tham is the suffix to form an abstract noun, as used in the
terms such as watthanatham or arayatham (.Photchananukrom chabap ratchabandit sathan pho. so.
2525 (A Thai dictionary: the Royal Academy 1982 edition), p.809, p. 421). For its counter concepts,
Pridi translated ‘idealism’ as chittatham, which is defined as an ideology that denies the significance
of all material aspect (Pridi, Khwam-pen-anitchang, p. 45). Pridi seems to have avoided the Thai
suffix -niyom which indicates some kind of ideology, as the English suffix ‘-ism’, because the Thai
suffix -niyom is often confused with the Thai verb niyom, which means ‘be fond o f’. Because of this
confusion, watthuniyom, a Thai translation of ‘materialism’ has been often confused as
niyom-watthu, or indulgence in material pleasure. However, the suffix, -tham in sasaratham that
Pridi coined as an alternative translation for materialism, is also ambiguous about whether Pridi
intended to integrate sasara (material) and tham (the dhamma of Buddhism), or he simply chose
233
material determinism, including both the mechanical materialism of eighteenth century

France that Marx criticised, and the Communist Party’s dogmatic materialist theory that

tended to exclude all the spiritual elements that might affect human beings. “True

scientific materialism”, according to Pridi, is also different from niyom -w atthu or

addiction to material well-being as often superficially stated. Although Pridi retained

the most basic materialist tenet which claims that, primarily, material conditions

produce the human mind, Pridi still agreed with Buddhadasa’s Buddhist view that

stressed the role of human will in overcoming defilements (Pali: kilesa), being to

attached to material comfort66. Implying a criticism to dogmatic materialist Marxists,

Pridi urged that the average worldly defiled human beings (Pali: puthujjana) who reject

Buddhist masters as idealists needed to study what materialism and idealism actually

mean . For Pridi, Buddhism never contradicts materialism, or the most fundamental

Marxist philosophy, because a Marxist who has the right understanding of materialism

never dismisses the Buddhist path of overcoming suffering as idealism, but rather

accepts it.

The second Marxist intellectual who followed Buddhadasa was Kulap

/TO

Saipradit (1905 - 1974), who was also known by his pseudonym, Sriburapha . Kulap

another suffix that implies the abstract nature of the compound word.
66 Pridi discussed, “The Buddha taught human beings to destroy their defilements not to be
infatuated by materials. The true materialist (Thai: sasarathammik) will accept the teaching method
which prevent people from becoming intoxicated with happiness too much as taught in Buddhism”
(Pridi, Khwam-pen-anitchang, p. 45).
6/ Pridi, Khwam-pen-anitchang, p. 90.
68 He came from a not very wealthy urbanite family in Bangkok. Kulap’s father was a clerk in the
Railway Department, and was also able to speak English. Kulap’s father’s father was an eye doctor
using Thai traditional medicine. After his father died when he was six, Kulap’s mother raised her
children - Kulap and his elder sister - by tailoring. Although his family was not very wealthy, Kulap
was highly educated at an elite high school and at Thammasat University. After the Constitutional
Revolution in 1932, Kulap’s intellectual excellence was recognised by Prince Wan Waithayakon
(who was a part of the royal intellectual elite but who supported the Revolution), and he entrusted
Kulap with the job of editor of a daily newspaper that he owned, Prachachat (“Banthuk chiwit lae
gnan khong kulap saipradit: banthuk chak chanit saipradit phu pen panraya” (A note on the life and
work of Kulap Saipradit: a note by Chanit Saipradit, his wife), Lok nangsu (Book world) (November
1978), pp. 29 - 34; “Banthuk chak phaet ying suraphin thanasophon - but-sao: lao doi nang chamrat
nimaphat - phi-sao” (A note by Kulap’s daughter, Dr. Suraphin Thanasophon: a story by Mrs.
Chamrat Nimaphat, Kulap’s elder sister), Lok nangsu (Book world) (November 1978), pp. 35 - 37).
Kulap pursued Marxism most intensively when he studied in Australia. Kulap had individual lessons
on political science by a junior lecturer at Melbourne University, and he collected Marxist literature
during his stay in Australia. About Kulap’s life and the English translation of his works while he was
in Australia, see Scot Barme (trans. & ed.), Kulap in Oz: a Thai view o f Australian life and society in
the late 1940s (Clayton: Monash Asia Institute, 1995), esp. “Introduction” by Barme. A series of his
articles, “Pratchaya khong latthi maksit” (The philosophy of Marxist ideology) in the journal,
234
was a journalist and a novelist who fought against social injustice though his writings.

Buddhadasa had been in touch with Kulap as a newspaper editor at least since January

193969. After 1940 when Buddhadasa started to give lectures at the Buddhist

Association of Thailand, Kulap attended every lecture of Buddhadasa and wrote a

summary of it in his newspaper to propagate Buddhadasa’s preaching70.

Kulap’s concern with Buddhism was centred on practice. In his letters to

Buddhadasa in September and December 1951, Kulap was interested in Buddhist

practice in lay worldly life71. In Buddhadasa’s words,

Kulap knew how to select dhamma that is useful for his daily life. He used it
practically in his own life. Kulap studied Buddhism as a lay person, not as a temple
dweller who learns Buddhism as rituals and memorises its principles. ‘As a lay
person’ means studying freely [without being restricted by any monastic tradition].
... Kulap always studied Buddhism by reading English books and journals from
foreign countries'2.

In February 1952 Kulap travelled all the way to Chaiya, Surat Thani in order to

visit Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh, and they discussed dhamma practice. Buddhadasa did

not give any particular advice on meditation, but recommended Kulap read his book,

Tam roi phra arahan (Following the footprints of the arahant), in which Buddhadasa
put the story of the Buddha’s path as written in the Buddhist scriptures73.
Kulap’s concern with Buddhism continued after 10 November 1952 while he

Aksonsan in 1950 suggests Kulap’s becoming a Marxist (Suphat Sukhonthaphirom, “Ramruk thung
khun kulap saipradit” (A memory of Kulap Saipradit), Suphot Dantrakun (ed.), Ramluk thung
‘siburapha ’ - kulap saipradit doi phuan ruam khuk 2495 - 2500 lae saha thammic (Memories of
Kulap Saipradit by his friends together in jail in 1952 - 1957 and his friends in the dhamma)
(Nonthaburi: Samnak phim santi tham, 1985), pp. 6, 8). About Kulap’s life and work in English, see
B. A. Batson, “Kulap Saipradit: the war of life”, Journal o f the Siam Society, Vol. 69, Parts 1 and 2
(January - July 1981), pp. 58 - 73; and David Smyth, “Introduction”, Siburapha, Behind the
painting and other stories (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 1 - 4 4 .
69 According to a Buddhadasa’s letter to Kulap dated 3 January 1939, Buddhadasa asked Kulap to
publish his article, “Chiwit kap nipphan” (Life and nibbänd) in the daily newspaper Prachachat of
which Kulap was then the editor. However, Kulap’s reply to Buddhadasa’s request was not found in
Suan Mokkh Archives. The correspondence between Buddhadasa and Kulap were first published in
the journal, Pacharayasan (December 1986), and reprinted in various books. For example,
Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana (The perfect dhamma and the works on
Buddhism) (Bangkok: Samnakphim dok ya, 1988,1993), pp. 255 - 276.
70 However, Buddhadasa was not sure whether or not Kulap attended his first lecture in 1940 at the
Buddhist Association (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., pp. 320 - 322, 400). Two examples of Kulap’s
summaries under the pseudonym, Itsarachon, are collected in Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung mua
khao phut thung rao (Fifty years of Suan Mokkh: Part I When they spoke of us) (Bangkok: Suan
usom mulanithi, 1982), pp. 1201 - 1204, and pp. 1205 - 1209.
71 Kulap Saipradit, letter to Buddhadasa, 5 September 1951, 3 December 1951, 31 May 1952, Suan
Mokkh Archives. Buddhadasa, letter to Kulap, 19 October 1951, Suan Mokkh Archives.
/2 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , pp. 400 - 401.
3 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 400.
235
was in jail as a political prisoner in the Peace Committee case together with Samak
Burawat. During his time in jail, Kulap as well as Samak received vipassanä meditation

training from a group of monks from Wat Mahathat headed by Phra Phimolatham (At)74.

Kulap and Samak contributed some articles on Buddhism to a journal of Phra

Phimolatham’s group, Wipatsanasan 75 . Kulap’s longest essay on Buddhism,

“Udomtham” was first published in Wipatsanasan, and it indicates Kulap’s continuous

concern with practice in Buddhism since he had discussed it with Buddhadasa. The

essay also suggests Buddhadasa’s influence on Kulap’s understandings of Buddhism as

shown in his argument and his reference to Buddhadasa as well as to the monk

teachers from Wat Mahathat77.

Compared with the purely religious ideal of pursuing the dhamma expressed in

“Udomtham”, the other series of Kulap’s essays on Buddhism while he was a prisoner,

“Sonthana ruang phutthasasana” (Talks on Buddhism) included some of his

-70

understandings of Marxism and Buddhism . In chapter 9, Kulap insisted that the

ideology of politics and economics, by which he implicitly meant Marxism, and the

Buddhist dhamma have a common goal - that is, the overcoming of human suffering.

The difference between them, according to Kulap, is the scope of suffering that the two
ideological systems define. Contrary to many Marxists who insisted that religions were
impractical idealism, Kulap understood that the scope of suffering that the dhamma

74 About their religious training, see Suphot Dantrakun (ed.), Ramluk thung‘siburapha ’.
75 In the journal, Kulap and Samak used the title, ‘Kho. Cho.’ or phu tong khang chai, which means
a male prisoner, until they were released. Their title in the journal became ‘Nai’ (Mr.) after volume 3
no. 4 in July 1957 (Chuai Phulaphoem, “Chak samnak phim” (From the publisher), Siburapha,
Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana). Kulap wrote a series of “Udomtham” (Perfect
dhamma) in Wipatsanasan from Vol. 2 No. 4 (July 1956), and Samak wrote “Nung duan nai
wipatsana” (A month of vipassanä meditation), Wipatsanasan, Vol. 2 No. 1 (January 1956), “Khun
kha thang sukkhaphap khong wipatsana kammathan” (Health advantage of vipassanä meditation),
Wipatsanasan, Vol. 2 No. 5 (September 1956), Wipatsanasan, Vol. 2 No. 6 (November 1956), and
“Thatsana thang pratchaya lang khao phra kammathan laeo” (A view on philosophy after
experiencing meditation), Wipatsanasan, Vol. 3 No. 4 (July 1957).
6 Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana, pp. 24, 30, 43.
7/ Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana, pp. 43, 64.
78 This series of essays was first published in the journal, Kadung thong (Gold wind-bell) in 1956
under the pseudonym of “Ubasok” (A lay Buddhist male). These essays are collected and
republished in: Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana, pp. 71 - 226. In some
sections of the series of “Sonthana ruang phutthasasana”, Kulap mentioned Marxist tenets, such as
utopian socialism, idealism, the contrast between metaphysical and dialectical methods, and formal
and dialectical logic (Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana, pp. 76, 82, 136,
139). However, they are not argued in relation to Buddhism. Unlike Pridi and Samak, Kulap did not
systematically discuss Marxist materialism and Buddhism.
236
deals with is much broader than the secular ideology that only looks at human suffering
in a certain limited definition79. Kulap believed that no matter how much better the
materials are to improve human life, suffering arises as long as human beings have
defilements. At this point, Buddhism is more reliable to improve human lifes0. This is a
clear expression by Kulap who valued Buddhism more than Marxist materialism in the
same way that Buddhadasa viewed Buddhism and Marxism.
Although being a Marxist, Kulap signalled his intellectual liberty the most by
OI

not affiliating with any political group , including the Communist Party. This may
explain his stance of continuing to respect Buddhism as a Marxist. The uncomfortable
relationship of Marxism with religion can be expected to be reinforced in the Marxist
institution, the Communist Party. Even if the Party did not regulate about faith in
religion, it could be a psychological dilemma to be a Buddhist and at the same time a
Communist Party member. Because of this pressure, the later Buddhist student activists
abandoned Buddhism voluntarily, i.e. without being forced by the Party. Kulap, who
always gave priority to ideological liberty over the benefits of political affiliation,
continued to be Buddhist and Marxist, and only co-operated with the Communist Party
so as to form a naew ruam (united front). Even while he was in exile in Mao’s China ,
Kulap continued his meditation practice until his death in 1974.
The third famous Marxist friend and follower of Buddhadasa was Samak
Burawat (1916 - 1975). Samak was the first Thai who specialised in mining

79 Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana, p. 196.

80 Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana, pp. 207 - 208.
81 According to Chanit, Kulap’s wife, Kulap declined offers from politicians to co-operate with them
a number of times because he thought that it was not convenient for him to express his opinion about
what was just. For example, Kulap declined all of the following invitations: an invitation to join the
People’s Party after the 1932 Constitutional Revolution; to co-operate in a project for the nation by
Field Marshal Phibun; to run a lawyer’s office with Direk Chayanam, a famous former ambassador
and former Minister for Foreign Affairs; and to become an editor of a government newspaper by
Phao Siyanon (“Banthuk chiwit lae gnan khong kulap saipradit”, p. 33).
82 After he was released from prison by the Peace Committee case in 1957, Kulap returned to his
journalist career, and was invited to visit socialist countries as arepresentative of the Thai grou
several times. While Kulap was visiting China as a head of aThai delegationof writers and
journalists for cultural exchange, Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat overthrew the government by a
military coup in October 1958, and enacted martial lawfor the purposes of countering the
communist threat. Since Sarit arrested everyone who had visited China as a communist, Kulap
decided not to return to Thailand, and he spent the rest of his life in China.
8j Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae than (A drop of water in the stream) (Bangkok:
Samnakphim ming mit, 1996), p. 181. About Rudi, see Chapter VI.
237
engineering84, and a philosopher who introduced European philosophy to Thailand83.
By coming first in the royal scholarship examinations in 1934, Samak studied natural
resource development and mining, and graduated from the Royal School of Mines,
Imperial College of Science and Technology at London University in 1937 obtaining a
B.Sc. with first class honours. After his return from Britain, Samak contributed not only
to Thai natural resource development for the government, but also taught European
philosophy to the monk students at Mahamakut Buddhist University.
Buddhadasa played a significant role at the very beginning of Samak’s interest
in Buddhism. In 1936 Samak wrote a book, Phuttha pratchaya athibai duai witthayasat
(Buddhist philosophy explained by science) integrating his Buddhist religion and his
major in science. Samak said that he could only write his book through the inspiration
from Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana to which he subscribed while he was in
oc
England . Samak’s father published Samak’s book in Thailand to distribute to his
friends. Buddhadasa was one of its readers. According to Buddhadasa,

An interesting work that made science related with Buddhism was by Samak
Burawat. ... Samak gave precise scientific examples that coincided with the three
principles of Buddhism - anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta
(non-self)87.

Samak once contributed an article to Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, in 1943 on

the three Buddhist principles that coincided with the European philosophy of the
oo
“dynamism” of evolution, in which he cited works of Descartes, Kant, and Bergson .
After their communications through their published works, Samak and Buddhadasa first
met each other at Mahamakut Buddhist University in Bangkok, where they were

84 The top science student in Thialnd, Samak was requested by then Prime Minister Phraya Phahon
to major in natural resources in earth science. This was because there were no Thai engineers who
could work for resource development, and thus the mining industry and business was monopolised
by foreigners. Samak fulfilled this expectation. After his return from England, Samak did not choose
to work in foreign companies which promised him twice the salary that the government could offer.
For Samak’s life, see his cremation volume: Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha thang phloeng sop phan
ek samak burawat to. cho. to. mo. (Commemoration in the cremation o f Colonel Samak Burawat -
the Third Class Order of the Thai Crown, and the Third Class Order of the White Elephant) (15
November 1975).
85 Samak also introduced European philosophies including Marxism and social Darwinism. He was
appointed a member of the Royal Academy in philosophy (Ratcha bandit nai wicha pratchaya) in
1942 at the age of twenty-six (Anuson phan ek samak burawat, p. [4]).
86 Samak Burawat, “Suan mokkhaphalaram”, Nangsuphim rai sapda ekachon (Weekly magazine
“Private”), vol. 4 No. 16 (31 May 1947); reprinted in Ha sip pi suan mok, pp. 1156 - 1165.
8/ Phra Pracha, Lao wai..., p. 545.
88 Samak Burawat, “Ruang phratchaya wa duai kan-plian-plaeng” (About the philosophies of

238
introduced by Phra Siwisutthiyan (Bunrot Suchiwo) in 194689. Samak also visited and
stayed at Suan Mokkh for a few days, and Buddhadasa took Samak to some interesting
geographical sites in the Chaiya area90. However, later Buddhadasa seemed not to agree
with Samak very much, and said

Samak Burawat compared Buddhism with science, and eventually made it a

philosophy. Buddhism as philosophy is not worth reading. ... Samak was not
interested in the overcoming of suffering. He was only interested in the causal
relationship, not in nibbäna and idappaccayacä (dependent origination). Later, he began
to be consulted about auspicious and inauspicious times {du ruk du yarn)9 .

Samak’s discussions of Buddhism and Marxism were most explicitly written in

an article, “Phutthit phachoen na kap khommiunit” (Buddhism in the face of
communism) in an intellectual Marxist journal, Aksonsan in August 1952 . In this
article, Samak compared and contrasted Buddhism and Marxism by explaining their
ideological position. Samak criticised the lay elite Buddhists in the Buddhist
Association of Thailand and the Young Buddhist Association, as well as a famous
British Buddhist, Christmas Humphreys, who utilised Buddhism as an ideological
critique against communism in 1948. These people defined Buddhism as idealism
(ichittaniyom), which they argued cannot go together with communism which never
takes into account the spiritual aspect of human beings.
However, Samak argued that dialectical materialism does not deny spiritual
aspects as mechanical materialism does. Pridi was going to discuss this in the same way
later in his Khwam-pen-anitchang in 1957. Dialectical materialism actually admits the
existence of mind, although it places the mind in a secondary position that is always
dependently defined by the material. At the same time, Samak said that Buddhist
philosophy was not idealism, but rather had some aspects that coincided with dialectical
materialism. Samak pointed out the materialist characteristic of Buddhism by referring
to The questions of King Milinda (Pali: Milinda-pahha), a classic Buddhist scripture.
The classical text suggests, according to Samak, that as well as dialectical materialism,
Buddhist epistemology also considers that the mind comes into existence through

dynamism), Phutthasasana (Special issue for the tenth anniversary, 1943), pp. 112 - 120.
89 Samak Burawat, “Suan Mokkh Phalaram”, p. 1157.
90 Phra Pracha, Lao w ai..., p. 548.
91 Phra Pracha, Lao wai. .., pp. 546, 548, 554 - 555.
92 Kaptan Samut (pseud. Samak Burawat), “Phutthit phachoen na kap khommiunit”, Aksonsan, Vol.
4 No. 5 (August 1952), pp. 10 - 45.
239
contact with outer materials. For example, visual cognition (Pali: cakkhu vinnäna) is given
rise to from the eye’s contact with a form, and auditory cognition (Pali: sota vinnäna) is
given rise to from the ear’s contact with a sound, and so on for the other senses.
Nevertheless, Samak also points out the difference between Buddhism and
dialectical materialism. They are different in their methods of overcoming suffering.
Buddhism teaches a method of idealism to pursue the liberation of mind through
destroying defilements (Pali: kilesa). On the other hand, Marxism teaches an economic
method to overcome suffering through revolution that abolishes private ownership and
collectivises the economy. True Marxists who understand the philosophy of dialectical
materialism, according to Samak, never refer to religion in their plan, because they
regard any spiritual state as determined by material conditions so that the morality
should be improved automatically by economic reform. For Samak, any Marxist who
utilises Buddhism for the purpose of political propagation of their ideology under the
pretence of Buddhism is a bogus Marxist. In the same way, such a Buddhist is also a
bogus Buddhist who attacks Marxism as an enemy of Buddhism by arguing that Marxist
materialism denies the idealist nature of Buddhism, since such a Buddhist ignores the
materialist character of Buddhism in order to polarise the ideological difference for
political purposes. In summary, by indicating both the commonalities and differences of
Marxism and Buddhism, the Buddhist Marxist philosopher Samak criticised the
politicisation of the ideological issues between Marxism and Buddhism.
In November 1952, three months after publishing this article, Samak was
arrested and charged with being a communist involved in the Peace Committee, in
which he had been elected a member of the working subcommittee93. However,
according to his wife, Anon Burawat, he was not a communist, but was only invited to
give lectures and intellectual support by leftists from Thammasat University94. After his
release in 1957, Samak worked as a mining engineer in the private and military projects
of strongmen, such as Phao Siyanon and Sarit Thanarat9^. He seems to have avoided

93 Kasian, “Commodifying Marxism...”, p. 477.

94 Anon Burawat, interview, Bangkok, 23 December 1999.
95 Mining seems have been a boom industry in the 1960s. The transformation of employment in
mining between 1960 and 1970 was from 30,000 to 87,000 (+290%) (Table 1.2 in World Bank,
“Thailand” II (Nov. 14, 1975), cited in Benedict Anderson, “Withdrawal Symptoms”, The spectre of
comparisons: nationalism, Southeast Asia and the world (London: Verso, 1998), p. 146).
240
communication with Marxists, and even quit teaching monks at the Buddhist University

because he was afraid of making the monks communist suspects. Although Samak

scarcely wrote books after that96, his works written before his imprisonment continued

to be influential throughout the 1960s under the dictators’ censorship97. This was

because his books did not have explicitly Marxist titles, but the contents consisted of an

account of the evolution of human beings based on Marxist history from ancient

communism until capitalist society . However, Samak was forgotten in the 1970s when

students preferred the easy, ready-made tenets of the Communist Party rather than

complicated Marxist philosophy. Samak died in 1975 as an isolated philosopher who

had not chosen either Marxism or Buddhism for his practice99.

Those three Marxist intellectuals, Pridi, Kulap and Samak, respected

Buddhadasa very much, and had friendly communication with him. Yet, in their

intellectual expressions about Marxism and Buddhism, particularly on materialism,

Buddhadasa’s role is not very explicit. Did not Buddhadasa’s thought have an impact on

their discussions about materialism? Buddhadasa’s contribution was significant in the

way he prepared the foundation for these Marxists to see Buddhism as an ideology that

could go together with Marxism. Superstitious, ritualistic Buddhism has little common
ground to compare with Marxism. Without so-called ‘scientific Buddhism’, which is
practically applied in this present lifetime, Marxists regarded Buddhism as a useless,

false consciousness, or at best a political tool. Some communist governments in other

Theraväda Buddhist countries such as Cambodia100 and Laos101 either devastated

Buddhism or treated as a political tool102. On the other hand, in Sri Lanka103, Burma104,

96 Anon Burawat, interview.

9/ Important communist intellectuals, such as Prawut Simanta and Anut Aphaphirom, say that they
studied Marxism through Samak’s books (Prawut Simanta, interview, Bangkok, 16 August 1999;
Anut Aphaphirom, interview, Bangkok, 17 August 1999).
98 For example, Samak Burawat, Panya wiwat phak 1, 2 (The evolution of human intellect Part 1, 2)
(Bangkok: Phrae phitthaya, second edition 1982).
99 As his career suggests, Samak was never involved in the political communist movement after his
release from the Peace Committee case. Samak also practised vipassanä meditation when he was a
prisoner of the Peace Committee case, and wrote his experiences of vipassanä in the journal,
Wipatsanasan (See footnote 75). However when interviewed, Anon said that Samak did not practise
meditation at home because he was busy working as an engineer.
100 See footnote 5.
101 See footnote 6.
102 The scientific aspects of Buddhism were analysed in the few studies on the topic of Marxism and
Buddhism in these two countries cited above. A possible reason why such discussion cannot be
found in these two countries might be that researchers have not yet found anything relevant.
241
and Thailand, where scientific Buddhism had a considerable impact through the

M aha-B odhi jo u rn a l published by Dhammapala from Sri Lanka, Marxist intellectuals

found commonality between Marxism and Buddhism, just as Pridi and Samak presented

in their works. In Thailand, it was Buddhadasa’s journal, P hutthasasana which first

published Thai translations of articles from the M a h a -B o d h i jo u rn a l after 1933.

Through the translations and his own discussions of scientific Buddhism, Buddhadasa

prepared the preconditions which meant Buddhism could be considered in relation to

Marxist theory.

Was Buddhadasa himself then ever involved in the discussion about whether

Buddhism was materialism or not? The answer is yes, but at the present stage of my

collecting and reading of Buddhadasa’s works, I have only found his remarks on this

issue in the late 1960s105, which is more than ten years after Pridi and Samak dealt with

it. As I will examine more precisely in the next chapter, Buddhadasa criticised

w a tth u n iyo m , or materialism, as material reductionism, and argued that Buddhism

should be m a n o n iy o m , or idealism. However, Buddhadasa’s m anom iyom is

distinguished from the ascetic idealism that rejects the material aspects of human life.

For Buddhadasa, the Buddhist path is the middle way that integrates both the material

However, it is also quite probable that for these two French colonies there was little impact from the
Maha-Bodhi journal that introduced scientific Buddhism to Thai intellectuals, because it was written
in English which seemed to have been less familiar for them than French.
103 In Sri Lanka, the modem Buddhism that Dhammapala presented in his Maha-Bodhi journal
connected with the aspiration of eliminating social suffering, such as the dominating British
colonialism, Protestantism, and capitalism. There were also discussions on the ancient Buddhist
community which resembled the abolishing of private property in communist ideology (E.
Sarkisyanz, “Buddhist background of Burmese Socialism”, Bardwell L. Smith (ed.), Religion and
legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma (Chambersburg, PA: ANIMA Books, 1978), pp.
87 - 99).
104 Burmese intellectuals had found common elements in Marxism and Buddhism since the
independence struggle in the 1930s. ‘Nirvana within life’, which was discussed in the Maha-Bodi
journal, had a revolutionary meaning, and the highest enlightenment stage was compared with the
political struggle for independence in Burma (E. Sarkisyanz, Buddhist background of Burmese
revolution (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965)). Thakin Soe, one of the most orthodox theorists of
Burmese Leninism, explained dialectical materialism as anicca, or “the Buddhist term for cyclical
generation and destruction of worlds”, just like Pridi Phanomyong did in Thailand. The resemblance
of Buddhism and Marxism was often discussed among the members of the Thakin Group of the
Dobama Asiayon Party, and established an actual political system as ‘Buddhist Socialism’ by U Nu
until 1962 when the military coup took over from the freely elected U Nu Regime (E. Sarkisyanz,
“Buddhist background of Burmese Socialism”, p. 93 - 95).
105 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Ruang watthuniyom kap manoniyom” (On materialism and idealism),
Boromatham phak ton: oprom phiksu nisit chulalongkon mahawitthayalai phansa pi 2512 (Supreme
dhamma volume I: training for student monks from Chulalongkom University in the 1969 rain
retreat) (Chaiya: Dhammadäna Foundation, 2525 [1982]), pp. 41 - 60.
242
and spiritual reality of human beings, but it has to be the righteous mind that determines
the path to be taken, never the defiled mind which is always tempted by material
desire106.

Buddhadasa’s argument about ascetic idealism resembles the Buddhist

M arxists’ views on historical materialism vis-ä-vis mechanical materialism. They

rejected the most extreme materialism (mechanical materialism), which denies the

existence of mind and insists that only the material exists, and instead proposed

historical materialism, which admits the existence of mind, but considers it as

dependent on the material. Buddhadasa also rejected extremist idealism, but insisted on

the priority of the mind over the material. The positions of Thai socialist Marxists and

that of Buddhadasa are close to the centre, but do not completely agree with each other.

The political position of Buddhadasa and those of Buddhist Marxists is quite

complex concerning the discussion of ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’. As Samak Burawat

presented in his article in Aksonsan, the conservative anti-communist Buddhists insisted

that Buddhism was chittaniyom or idealism that had to be protected from the threat of

materialist communism or Marxism. Although Buddhadasa also insisted that Buddhism

was idealism, his idealism is carefully given his own Thai translation, manoniyom,

instead of chittaniyom, which has been a more common translation of idealism.

Buddhadasa seems to have avoided putting himself on the side of the anti-communist

campaign by referring to the materialist communist view towards Buddhism, but he

never gave in to the Marxist side either. Buddhadasa insisted on his own view as a

Buddhist, the mind was supposed to have control over the outer material world without

being defiled by material desire. Whilst, the three Buddhist Marxist followers of

Buddhadasa defended the materialist philosophy of Marxism by indicating that

dialectical materialism should be distinguished from the simple rejection of spirituality

as mechanical materialism defines it. However, they rather paid attention to the

commonalities found in the Buddhist concept of impermanence and in its epistemology.

However, their understandings of common aspects of Marxist dialectical materialism

and Buddhism never became political propaganda used to persuade Buddhists to believe

in Marxism. For one reason, such argument about dialectical materialism and Buddhism

106 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Ruang watthuniyom kap manoniyom”, pp. 50 - 51.

243
is highly philosophical, and too difficult for ordinary people, or even educated people

who do not make intellectual inquiries, to understand in all its philosophical complexity.

It was also because these Buddhist Marxist intellectuals did not belong to the

Communist Party of Thailand nor own any political group to actualise their Marxist

ideology after this discussion had taken place. The Communist Party of Thailand,

whose members always sought to maintain a correct ideological position, seems also to

have been indifferent to such philosophical questions of materialism and Buddhism and

indeed even to have been indifferent to Buddhism itself107.

Into the 1960s and 1970s the more simplified formula of Marxist materialism

versus idealist Buddhism spread among students and intellectuals. The complicated

arguments by Buddhadasa and the Buddhist Marxist intellectuals were ignored or

forgotten, except for a few non-communist Marxist disciples of Pridi Phanomyong who

took up this issue in the 1970s and 1980s . However, this was a unique intellectual

10' Prawut Simanta, interview, Bangkok, 16 August 1999. According to Prawut, who was nominated
to be a candidate for a member of the central committee (Thai: kammakan klang samrong) of the
Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) in 1983, and who was the number two man at the CPT’s capital
area division for organising intellectuals into the Party, the CPT’s religious policy was influenced by
that of the Chinese Communist Party. They thought that people can believe in religion, and also
allowed criticism of religion. From Prawut’s point of view, the dominant Chinese executive of the
Party understood neither Buddhism nor Marxist philosophy, and sometimes even believed in
superstitious spirits. Prawut himself, had a different view from those Buddhist Marxist thinkers who
had never become members of the CPT. Although Prawut was from an ethnic Thai Buddhist village
in Yasothon Province, he found that Buddhism was not necessary for him to adhere to after he
became fully enlightened about the relationship between matter and ideas by studying the law of
conservation of matter. Since Prawut was convinced by the materialist philosophy and became fully
a Marxist, he no longer believed in Buddhism, which had disappointed him with the indulgent
practices of Buddhist monks. In Prawut’s own words, “I respect religion, but I do not believe in
religion. I completely believe in Marxism”.
108 There are at least two Buddhist Marxist thinkers: Suphot Dantrakun and Suphat
Sukhonthaphirom, who were not Communist Party members, but rather disciples of Pridi
Phanomyong. Suphot first discussed the issues between Marxism and Buddhism in his book, Lok
khommiunit (Communist world), which was first published in 1975, but this book was banned and
confiscated after the 6 October reactionary coup in 1976. Suphot republished it in 1986 by changing
its title to Phutthasasana kap khommiunit (Buddhism and the communist) under the pseudonym,
Sawok, which means a male Buddhist disciple. The third edition of this book is published as: Suphot
Dantrakun, Phutthasasana kap khommiunit (Bangkok: Samnakphim sukkhaphap chai, 2000)
(Suphot Dantrakun, “Kham khun ton” (Forward), Phutthasasana kap khommiunit, p. 3). In the book,
Suphot responded to a question whether communism would destroy religion, as anti-communist
government propaganda had been advertised. Suphot developed his argument on the philosophical
question of Marxism and Buddhism by referring to Pridi Phanomyong and Samak Burawat. Suphot
is also a follower of Buddhadasa, and defended Buddhadasa from Anan Senakhan’s abuse against
him by publishing a book: Sawok, To phra? anan senakhan lae khana ruang khamson diaradhi
(Arguing against Phra? Anan Senakhan and his group on the heretical teaching) (Bangkok:
Rongphim Suwannaphum). The other Buddhist Marxist, Suphat Sukhonthaphirom published a book,
Phuttha-pratchaya kap pratchaya maksit (Buddhist philosophy and philosophy of Marxism) first in
1981, it was reprinted in 1998 (Suphat Sukhonthaphirom, Phuttha pratchaya kap pratchaya maksit
244
encounter when Marxism and Buddhism met each other in Thailand, and it actually

indicated alternative ways of viewing Marxism and religion instead of polarising and

radicalising this issue for political conflict.

4. Political position of Buddhadasa

As we have examined above, Buddhadasa had contacts with a number of the

most famous Marxists in Thailand. However, because of these personal relationships,

Buddhadasa’s thought cannot be simply labelled as sympathetic to Marxism. The

thought of Buddhadasa is even paradoxically characterised as “Radical conservatism”

by his social activist followers109. In order to clarify Buddhadasa’s political position, I

will examine: first, the four political groups in the 1950s; second, his relationship with

the Peace Committee movement; and third, his being a communist suspect as a

defamatory campaign by his opponents.

In the post-World War II period through to almost the end of the 1950s, there

were mainly four political groups in Thailand: the military group of Phibun; the

anti-communist liberal royalists such as Khwan Aphaiwong, Seni and Kukrit Pramoj
brothers; the socialists, or non-CPT Marxists including the Pridi-Free Thai group; and
the Communist Party110. Buddhadasa had few contacts with the military group, whose

taste in Buddhism seemed not to be of the school of Buddhadasa. With the liberal

royalist group, some of whose members held important positions in Buddhist

intellectual circles**111, Buddhadasa had difficulty in finding ideological agreement, as

happened in the famous panel discussions of Buddhadasa and Kukrit Pramoj in 1963

(Nonthaburi: Sathaban witthayasat sangkhom, 1998)). In this book Suphat detailed the relationship
between mind and matter in Buddhist and Marxist philosophy. Suphat also referred to Buddhadasa’s
works.
109 Sulak Sivaraksa et. al. (eds.), Radical conservatism: Buddhism in the contemporary world
(Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development, and International Network of
Engaged Buddhists, 1990). This book is dedicated for Buddhadasa and contributed by Buddhist
activists and scholars who were concerned with Buddhadasa’s thoughts.
110 cf. Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism...”, p. 259.
111 Kukrit was a member of the advisory board of Mahamakut Buddhist University around 1962 -
1966, and he often published his articles in Thammachaksu, the journal of Mahamakut Buddhist
University. His brother, Seni was also a member of the advisory board in 1962. (Thammachaksu vol.
41 No. 1 (October 1962) - vol. 43 No. 3 (December 1966)). Later Kukrit owned a daily newspaper,
Sayam rat, and had a column to express his views on Buddhism. Kukrit should be considered as a
vocal lay Buddhist intellectual.
245
 112 r_
and 1964 . The socialist group (which was ideologically less radical than the

communists on the left, but was more progressive than the royalists and the military on

the right) was most closely associated with Buddhadasa. In Thailand, a socialist is

usually defined as someone who is ideologically an adherent of Marxism, but who is not

a Communist Party member. If we regard Prasoet Sapsunthon as an exception due to his

unique career, Buddhist Marxist intellectuals who were closely associated with

Buddhadasa, including Pridi Phanomyong, Kualp Saipradit, and Samak Burawat, are all

called “socialists”. However, Buddhadasa’s relationship with those socialist Marxists

did not damage his reputation, because they have been highly respected as progressives

by the public. Instead, his link to them gave Buddhadasa a favourable progressive image

rather than implicating him in a dangerous conspiracy. Among members of the

Communist Party of Thailand, there are several executives who respected Buddhadasa

from reading his works . Their respect for Buddhadasa was private faith in

Buddhadasa’s teaching outside the Party’s policy as far as the Bangkok-based

Communist Party cadres knew114. In summary, among the four ideological groups in the

112 About the panel discussion, see Chapter III.

113 Samphat Phungprasoet (1928 - ), who used to be a member of the political bureau of the CPT
but who quit the Party to return to his career as a lawyer in 1971, has respected Buddhadasa and his
works since around 1982. Pluang Wannasi (1922 - 1996), who was a Central Committee member,
also respected Buddhadasa since he was involved in student activities. Both Samphat and Pluang are
from Buddhist background, and did not abandon Buddhism when they became communists
(Samphat Phungprasoet, interview, Bangkok, 6 April 2000; Khana kammakan chat ngan ramluk
Pluang Wannasi (ed.), Prawat phonngan lae kham ramluk pluang wannasi: kwi-nakkhian-naksu
(History, work of and word of condolence for Pluang Wannasi: a poet, writer, and fighter) (Bangkok:
Chonniyom, 1597), p. 20). Wirot Ampai, one of the five supreme executives who founded the CPT,
also respects Buddhadasa, and was recently preparing to publish a Chinese translation of one of
Buddhadasa’s works from Sukkhaphap Chai publishing (Bancha Chaloemchaikit, the owner of the
Sukkhaphap Chai publishing, telephone conversation, April 2000).
114 The operation of the Communist Party was divided by regions, and intra-Party communication
was very difficult. According to Prawut Simanta (a candidate for a member of the Central
Committee in 1983), and Phirun Chatrawanitchakun (a member of the Central Committee in 1983),
who used to do their Party activities in Bangkok and in the jungle in the Northern region, their units
have never contacted Buddhadasa for co-operation. They are not sure whether the unit of the Party in
the Southern region might have contacted Suan Mokkh (Prawut, interview; Phirun
Chatrawanitchakun, interview, Bangkok, 1 September 1999). Kanya Lilalai, one of the CPT
members who worked for the Voice of the Thai People Radio Broadcasting in Yunnan, which was
one of the propagation and intellectual centres of the CPT, says that Buddhadasa cannot even be
regarded as a united front of the Party. On Buddhist holidays, there were some monks who gave
sermons from the Voice of the Thai People, but those were not related to Buddhadasa (Kanya Lilalai,
interview, Bangkok, 18 December 1999). According to Buddhadasa, a monk communist once visited
him, and confessed that he was the member. The monk thought that Buddhadasa was a communist or
a communist sympathiser from the beginning of their work. As soon as Buddhadasa denied this, the
monk left Suan Mokkh in less than an hour (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 339). This visit seems to be
a personal rather than an official contact, because the monk did not disturb Buddhadasa as soon as he
246
1950s, Buddhadasa was more respected by, and personally closer to the leftists rather
than the rightists.

Buddhadasa’s distance from the political movement of communism became

most obvious by his non-involvement in the Peace Committee activities, which was

under the guidance of the Soviet Union. An invitation letter from the Peace Committee

of Thailand dating from July 1952 was found at the Suan Mokkh Archives. Buddhadasa

wrote a short note in the margin of the invitation letter from the Committee chair,

Charoen Supsaeng, “I am not able to co-operate with you because [for me] the meaning

of peace is different”. The Peace Committee’s involvement was a significant indicator

of whether an intellectual concern in Marxism had developed into political activism or

not. A famous Marxist intellectual, Supha Sirimanon, also declined to sign his name to

the campaign against the Korean War, which was organised by the Peace Committee
and through which the Communist Party intended to expand its influence. Contrary to

Supha, many other Marxist colleagues of Supha’s journal, Aksonsan, such as Kulap

Saipradit, Samak Burawat, and Atsani Phonlachan, participated in it, and were arrested,

charged with being communists11:>. Buddhadasa, who did not become involved in it, did

not share the fate of those intellectuals in the Peace Committee Movement.
Although all these hints suggest that Buddhadasa did not have a role in the

political activism of either the communist or socialist movements, he was still accused

of being a communist. The first such accusation against Buddhadasa derived from his

lecture in June 1948 at the Buddhist Association of Thailand. The lecture was titled

“Mountainous hindrance on the way of the Buddha-Dhamma”. Buddhadasa declared in

the lecture that if we were attached to our own views of the Buddha, the Dhamma, the

Sangha, this would block the way to reach the truth116. Phra Thipparinya (Thup
i in

Klamphasut) , an ex-judge of the court of appeal, who had passed the sixth grade of

discovered his misunderstanding.

115 See, Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism...”, pp. 449 - 494.
116 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Phukhao haeng withi phuttha-tham” (Mountainous hindrance on the
way of the Buddha-Dhamma), Chumnum patthakatha chut phuttha-tham (The collection of lectures
on the Buddha dhamma) (Bangkok: Sukkhaphap chai, 1992), pp. 126 - 169.
11' The title, ‘Phra’ of Phra Thipparinya does not indicate his being a monk, but instead, was a
bandasak, which is a nonhereditary title conferred by the sovereign mostly on government officials.
Phra Thipparinya (Thup Klamphasut) (1890 - 1977) had been a monk at Wat Rakhang and Wat
Mahathat. After disrobing at the age of twenty-two, he started studying law and became a judge. As
a judge, he was socially respected, and earned a good salary so that he was able to be an influential
supporter of Wat Mahathat. He was also one of the first generation of Abhidhamma teachers in
247
the Pali ecclesiastical examinations, got very angry for the sake of the Lord Buddha that

Buddhadasa’s lecture was irreverent. Phra Thipparinya brought both civil and monastic

charges against Buddhadasa as being a communist118. For the civil charge, Phra

Thipparinya brought the case to Luang Katsongkhram, then a confidant of Phibun

Songkhram 119 to make the authorities arrest Buddhadasa. Phra Thipparinya argued that

Buddhadasa intended to destroy Buddhism by receiving benefit from communists.

However, Luang Katsongkhram did not take the charge very seriously120.

Phra Thipparinya brought the monastic charge against Buddhadasa to the

Supreme Patriarch and the Ecclesiastical Minister of Education121. The Supreme

Patriarch Klom Luang Wachirayanawong abiding at Wat Bowonniwet never took the

charge seriously. Phra Sasanasophon at Wat Rachathiwat, the monastic head of the

southern provinces, who was “responsible” for Buddhadasa in terms o f the monastic

administration, took Buddhadasa to the Supreme Patriarch to defend himself. However,

the Supreme Patriarch did not pick up the charge in his conversation, but said instead, “I

Thailand. Later, he and Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu co-operated to attack Buddhadasa’s concept of chit
wang (empty mind) (Anuson ngan phra racha than phloeng sop: phra thipparinya (thup
kiamphasut) (Commemoration for the cremation: Phra Thipparinya) (21 May 1977); Phra Sithawat
Waniwattiko interview, Nonthaburi, 30 April 1999). See also Chapter IV, p. 194.
118 Excerpts from Phra Thipparinya’s leaflet that accused Buddhadasa were reprinted in Ha sip pi
suan mok: phak nung mua khao phut thung rao (Fifty years of Suan Mokkh: Part I When they spoke
of us) (Bangkok: Suan usom mulanithi, 1982), pp. 747 - 762. According to his leaflets, Phra
Thipparinya worked intensively to criticise Buddhadasa. First, he sent a letter containing questions
to Buddhadasa in July 1948, a month after his lecture. On 4 - 6 August 1948, at Wat
Thammathipatai, he gave lectures on meditation, which included an accusation against Buddhadasa.
Those lectures were published in Phutthacak, the journal of the Mahachulalongkon Buddhist
University. On 28 August 1948, he produced a leaflet, “Sarup yo naew wipatsana” (Summary of
styles of vipassanä meditation), which he extracted from his lectures. On 17 July 1949, he produced a
leaflet of seven questions and his answers about Buddhadasa’s interpretation. In 1949, Phra
Thipparinya and Phraya Achayachak distributed a leaflet, “Raboet phukhao himalai: khan kho thi
phutthathat phikkhu klao thet sai rai phra phut, phra tham, phra song wa pen phu khao himalai bang
mai hai hen phra nipphan” (Blasting the Himalayan mountains: Opposing Buddhadasa Bhikkhu’s
wrong argument which said that the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha are Himalayan mountains
that hinder to attainment of nibbäna). They sent the leaflet to each monastic head of province, and to
the public at Wat Samphraya in Bangkok.
119 Luang Katsongkhram was a military member of the People’s Party, who participated in the
Constitutional Revolution in 1932. He was the ringleader of the coup in November 1947, which
brought Phibun Songkhram back to power after World War II. As a result of his actions, Luang
Katsongkhram was appointed the deputy chief commander of the military. However, some years
later, Luang Katsongkhram fled into exile because of a suspected attempt to overthrow Phibun (Eiji
Murashima, personal communication, 16 July 1999).
120 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 322.
121 In 1948 - 1951, when Buddhadasa was sued by Phra Thipparinya, the Supreme Patriarch was
Krom Luang Wachirayanawong at Wat Bowongniwet, and the Ecclesiastical Ministory of Education
was Somdet Plot Kittisophano at Wat Benchamabophit. After Wachirayanawong died in 1958,
Somdet Plot succeeded to the position of the Supreme Patriarch.
248
want to live in Suan Mokkh with you; it is busy living here”122. On the other hand, the

Ecclesiastical Minister of Education, Somdet Plot Kittisophano at Wat Benchamabophit,

believed the charge of Phra Thipparinya. Phra Sasanasophon at Wat Rachathiwat (then

Phra Thammakosachan), again, took Buddhadasa to Somdet Plot to defend himself.

Somdet Plot reprimanded Buddhadasa as to why he did not use the principles given in

the Visuddhimagga, the classical Buddhist doctrinal exegetical text by Buddhaghosa

written in fifth century Sri Lanka. Somdet Plot asked for the basis of Buddhadasa’s

interpretation that made the Buddha an obstacle to reach the truth. Somdet Plot listened

to Buddhadasa’s defence for less than an hour, and let him go without charging him

with any penalty. Buddhadasa understood that Somdet Plot could not lay any penalty on

him because there was no evidence of him being hired by communists since the charge

was solely based on a conjecture by Phra Thipparinya “ .

In Thailand, the accusation of being a communist has been a very common

means to attack opponents or someone with whom one is at odds. Even though Phra
Thipparinya sued Buddhadasa as a communist because of his radical sermon, there were

no actual relationships cited as evidence of Buddhadasa’s political affiliation with the

Communist Party. Buddhadasa’s close relationship with socialist Marxists, such as Pridi,
Kulap and Samak, was not referred to as supporting the charge of being a “communist”

or Marxist either. The accusation of Buddhadasa’s being a communist was never

seriously considered as a fact by influential elder monks in the Sangha124, and it was

122 Supreme Patriarch Wachirayanawong knew of Buddhadasa through Maha Thongsup Suphamak
at the textbook bureau of the Mahamakut Buddhist University. Buddhadasa had once met the
Supreme Patriarch before this defence. The Supreme Patriarch had already made a good remark
about Buddhadasa’s work (Phra Pracha, Lao w a i... , p. 301).
123 In the defence, Chairman Luprasoet, a celebrity follower of Buddhadasa, attended to assist
Buddhadasa, as did Phra Sasanasophon (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 323). According to Sanya
Thammasak, Sanya sent Buddhadasa to defend himself to Somdet Plot at Wat Benchamabophit, the
latter had not yet become the Supreme Patriarch. Sanya was so afraid that he could not attend the
meeting in Buddhadasa’s defence since he anticipated Plot’s severe criticism of Buddhadasa.
However, Plot agreed with Buddhadasa’s opinion after all by saying that Buddhadasa’s talk was too
progressive for people to catch up with, and no penalty was given to him (Thammakriat Kan’ari,
“Samphat sanya thammasak” (Interview with Sanya Thammasak), Matichon sut sapda (Weekly
Matichon), Vol. 8 No. 403 (22 May 1988), pp. 18 - 20).
124 Especially, the support from Phra Sasanasophon was significant for Buddhadasa’s promotion in
the Sangha administration. Phra Sasanasophon (Plot), who accompanied Buddhadasa to the
interview with the Supreme Patriarch, was a high-ranking monk in the Sangha administration. Phra
Sasanasophon knew of Buddhadasa through Buddhadasa’s uncle ordained at Wat Rachathiwat. Phra
Sasanasophon, who was charged with the administration of the southern monastic division, had
jurisdiction over Buddhadasa, he always gave Buddhadasa opportunities to talk at meetings, and
promoted him in the ecclesiastic echelons. Although Phra Sasanasophon belonged to the Thammayut
249
rather Phra Thipparinya who finally lost face after the ten years of his campaign125. This

communist accusation by Phra Thipparinya should be understood as a groundless,

defamatory campaign, which, for the moment at least had little effect on Buddhadasa’s

reputation126.

Much more harsh attacks by anonymous organisations and rumours of

Order and Buddhadasa belonged to the Mahanikai Order, Phra Sasanasophon supervised
Buddhadasa under the 1941 Sangha Act, which integrated the two separate administrations into one
administrative unit (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 377; Phra Pracha and Santisuk Sophonsiri, Phap
chiwit 80 pi phutthathat phikkhu: mid mai khong phra phutthasasana (Pictorical biography of 80
years of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: a new dimension of Buddhism) (Bangkok: Satiankoset-Nakhaprathip
Foundation, 1986, 2530), p. 113).
125 Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko witnessed Phra Thipparinya’s losing face at the special dhamma
colloquy with an audience of a thousand at Wat Mahathat in 1951. Chamnan Luprasoet, a notable
follower of Buddhadasa, asked a question in the colloquy, “I have been thinking of the issue about
the accusation against Buddhadasa, who said that the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha were the
Himalayan Mountains, which would not allow nibbäna to those who are attached to these. Then, the
opponents, who had Phra Thipparinya as their leader, censored Buddhadasa for destroying
Buddhism worse than Devadatta. Phra Thipparinya has spent a huge amount of money and energy to
destroy Buddhadasa so vehemently. I would like to know who is right and who is wrong.” The chair
of the colloquy was Phra Phimolatham (At). At said, “This is a big issue in society which has been
discussed for a long time. Luang Pho Suk, answer to it.” The audience became completely calm,
waiting for an answer of Luang Pho Suk, or Chao Khun Phawanaphiram, the chief respondent of the
colloquy. Suk admitted Buddhadasa’s devoted work for Buddhism, and finally said, “I would say
that Ven. Buddhadasa was not wrong. He teaches high level Buddhism correctly. Everyone knows
that (the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha would be an obstacle to reach nibbäna if one is attached to
them), but no one was ever brave enough to teach in that way as a monk. This was how monks made
people attached to the Buddha, Dhamma, and the Sangha. Most of them teach in this way. ...
Because the two opponents of Buddhadasa [Phra Thipparinya and Phraya Achayachak] had
understood that Buddhadasa was an enemy of Buddhism, who destroys Buddhism, they dedicated
their fund of 200,000 baht to fight Buddhadasa since they had a strong belief in Buddhism. Such
persons are very difficult to find. Where could we find such persons who devote a huge amount of
their money and time?” After the answer of Suk, At the chair summarised the answer in beautiful
words. He said, “We may have heard an old saying, there are some phrases of dhamma in the canon,
and some enlightened monks are mistrusted because we do not understand the meaning deeply
enough or correctly”. Then, Chamnan stood up and said, “Let me take a note”. At had to repeat his
utterance several times, and Chamnan made sure of his note by repeating it loudly. Phra Thipparinya,
who was then one of the most important lay supporters of Wat Mahathat, had to leave his seat. As far
as Sithawat remembers, after this colloquy, Phra Thipparinya became seriously ill, and withdrew
from his activities in Wat Mahathat. This colloquy was held exactly ten years after Buddhadasa’s
lecture of Phukhao at the Buddhist Association of Thailand. Sithawat recalled Buddhadasa had been
saying that people would understand his intention after ten years (Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko,
interview, 30 April 1999). This story suggests that the Mahanikai elders, such as At and Suk, also
understood the meaning of Buddhadasa’s radical sermon, and did not take the communist charge
against him seriously.
126 Regardless of Phra Thipparinya’s charge, Buddhadasa was on the track to wider recognition and
promotion during that time. Even though the communist charge was examined in the Sangha
authority during 1949 and 1950, Buddhadasa was appointed in 1949 to the head of the Buddhist
Mission Organisation of Region 5 or the southern provinces, and as the abbot of Wat Boromathat
Chaiya, the historic temple in Buddhadasa’s hometown. In 1950, he was even promoted to the
monastic title, Phra Ariyananthamuni (cf. The biographical calendar in Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p.
701; Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung, p. 762). These appointments in the ecclesiastic order suggest
that the communist accusation was not considered seriously and did not affect Buddhadasa’s
reputation straightaway during that time.
250
Buddhadasa’s being a communist121 came after the 1960s until the end of the 1970s.
Those later accusations were defamatory campaigns by the Abhidhamma School,
Buddhadasa’s opponents, who were also committed to anti-communist propaganda,
rather than well-grounded charges. If Buddhadasa sympathised with the communists,
propaganda sermons should have been delivered by him as the yuwasong (young
monks) did128. However, Buddhadasa did not take this choice. Buddhadasa’s sermons in
the 1960s and the 1970s were critical both of the existing socio-political conditions and
of the brutal struggles of the communist insurgency, as we are going to examine in the
next chapter. Some of Buddhadasa’s followers think that Buddhadasa was rumoured to
be and suspected of being a communist as CIA retaliation, because he declined to give
propaganda sermons against communism. He did this in order to maintain his
independence from secular politics, and not to be involved in either communist or
anti-communist propaganda . Buddhadasa maintained his position as a Buddhist monk
against the prevailing Marxist ideologies and political movements current in the
Buddhist public sphere.

In this chapter, I have examined the ideological encounters between Marxism

and Buddhism among Thai Buddhist intellectuals, such as Buddhadasa and his lay
intellectual associates, in the post-World War II period. Under the relatively liberal
political conditions, Marxism was studied and accepted by Thai intellectuals outside the
influence of the Communist Party of Thailand (which was under the control of the
Chinese Communist Party through ethnic Chinese communities in Thailand).
Buddhadasa’s radical sermons attracted Marxist intellectuals to expect a reform in
religious understandings and practices. Some found materialist aspects in the scientific
philosophy of Buddhism, which they argued were inadequate to be utilised for the

127 About the rumour, see Chapter III, p. 168.

128 About yuwasong, see Somboon Suksamaran, Buddhism and politics in Thailand, especially
chapter 4.
129 An American from the USIS visited Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh to seek co-operation to protect
Thailand and Buddhism from the threat of communism in exchange for material support. However,
Buddhadasa did not accept this offer (Phra Pracha, Lao wai ..., p.338). Some o f Buddhadasa’s lay
followers, Arun Wetchasuwan and Suphot Dantrakun, believe that the CIA incited anti-communist
campaigners, such as Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu and Anan Senakhan, to blame Buddhadasa as a
communist agent. These followers of Buddhadasa say that they inferred this from the connections of
Buddhadasa’s opponents and their anti-communist campaign although they do not have concrete
evidence (Arun Wetchasuwan, interview; Suphot Dantrakun, interview, Bangkok, 8 October 1998).
251
anti-communist campaign. Although Buddhadasa studied and discussed Marxism from

a Buddhist perspective, he maintained the position of a Buddhist monk, and was never

totally convinced by Marxist ideologies nor did he take part in the political movement

of communism.

Such discussions between Marxism and Buddhism were significant for Thai

Buddhist intellectuals in the public sphere. It is true that Buddhism as an institution,

including individual monks who belong to the institution, are supposed to be distinct

from politics, and the Sangha was neither involved in the discussions of Marxism nor

announced any official view on ideological and political conflicts. Nevertheless,

Buddhism was an important intellectual frame of reference for Thai intellectuals from a

Buddhist backgrounds. Discussions about Buddhist truth were not restricted to the

religious, doctrinal issues. A new secular ideology was also brought to the Buddhist

public sphere for discussion, and it urged individual Buddhist intellectuals, ordained and

lay to decide on a political attitude.

By the end of the 1950s, Buddhist philosophy was understood by Thai

Buddhist Marxists as coherent with Marxism materialism, but one question remained.

Had Buddhism anything to do with social problems, i.e. could it suggest a possible
solution? Buddhadasa and other Thai Buddhist intellectuals who declined to convert to
Marxism had to work on this question from a Buddhist point of view over the next

decades.

252
Chapter VI Dhammic Socialism: development of social aspects in Thai
Buddhism through discussions with Marxism in the 1960s - 1990s

A common goal of both Buddhism and Marxism is the achievement of justice.

Apart from the complicated philosophical coincidence of Marxist dialectical
materialism and Buddhist epistemology and the law of impermanence, pointed out by
the Buddhist Marxist intellectuals in the 1950s, neither Marxist nor Buddhist disagrees
with the broad sense of what justice means. The Thai word for justice, khwam-pen-tham,
was always in the daily newspapers and in leftist journals throughout the period of
political turmoil in the 1970s. Although the word khwam-pen-tham is used as a general
noun in non-religious, secular contexts, it is not difficult for Thai people to be reminded
of the Buddhist origin of the word, the dhamma. Especially for Buddhadasa’s followers,
who had learnt about the dhamma of which the fruit should be obtained here and now in
the present life, contemporary society and politics could become one of their concerns
as something that always has to be consistent with the dhamma.
Buddhadasa’s “Dhammic Socialism” was a Buddhist perspective of a just
social order supported by some Marxist concepts. Based on the Pali scriptures and the
early history of Buddhism, Buddhadasa indicated that there was evidence of social,
economic and political orders that coincided with the ideal society of socialism.
Buddhadasa insisted that Buddhism is practical enough to be applied to achieve justice
in contemporary society. It brought to the public sphere of Buddhism a social dimension
to be examined in the dhamma.
Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism has been studied by both western and Thai
scholars and activists, from academic and activist perspectives. The content of
Dhammic Socialism was examined in the works of both Jackson1 and Swearer2, but in
their works the relationship of Buddhadasa’s concept and the social context of the Thai
people’s discussions about Dhammic Socialism was not very clear. While Gabaude, in
his study of Buddhadasa's hermeneutics, examined Buddhadasa’s relationship with

1 Peter A. Jackson, Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker for the modern world (Bangkok: Siam Society
Under Royal Patronage, 1988).
2 Donald K. Swearer, “Introduction: The vision of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa”, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa,
Dhammic Socialism (translated and edited by Donald K. Swearer) (Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious
Commission for Development, 1986), pp. 13 - 43.
253
Marxists and his interpretation of what Buddhism says about society, he did not
specifically take up Dhammic Socialism345. In the same way a Thai scholar, Pricha
Changkhwanyun also discussed the ideological position of Dhammic Socialism, but the
contemporary Thai history that stimulated Buddhadasa to formulate his ideas was not
within the scope of his study4. Chonlatee Yangtrong’s M.A. thesis examined the Thai
political situation and the development of Buddhadasa’s thought which gave birth to his
Dhammic Socialism5. However, Chonlatee’s concern was to examine the relevance of
Buddhadasa’s concept, rather than the social background that influenced its reception.
From activist perspectives, the works of Phaisan Wongwarawisit (who is at
present ordained and has the name Phra Phaisan Wisalo)6, Tavivat Puntarigvivat78, and
o
Santikaro Bhikkhu , for example, are intended to develop Buddhadasa’s social
philosophy further. Phaisan made a critical comment on the unrealistic dictatorial
method of Dhammic Socialism, and urged that justice in real political and economic
system and institutions be actuaiised. Tavivat also pointed out the limitation of
Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism, its approach is too individualistic to solve
socio-economic problems in the global market economy, and he presented his advanced
alternative, “Buddhist economics” and “market dhammic socialism”. Santikaro applied
the Buddhist perspective of Dhammic Socialism to contemporary social critiques. These
studies can in some ways be considered part of the intellectual current that this chapter
is going to explore.
This chapter will demonstrate the dialectical conflict between Marxism and
Buddhism in Thailand from the 1960s through to the 1990s, in which Buddhadasa

3 Louis Gabaude, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande: Buddhadasa

Bhikkhu (Paris: Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1988).
4 Pricha Changkhwanyun, Khwam-khit thang kanmuang khong than phutthathat phikkhu
(Buddhadasa’s thought on politics) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Chulalongkon Mahawitthayalai, 1993).
3 Chonlatee Yangtrong, “Khwam-khit thang kanmuang khong phutthathat phikkhu” (The political
thoughts of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), M.A. thesis, Department of Government, Graduate School,
Chulalongkom University, 1990).
6 Phaisan Wongwarawisit, “Than phutthathat kap thammika sangkhomniyom” (Buddhadasa and
Dhammic Socialism), Phutthathat kap khon run mai: mua khon num sao tham thung rak khong
khwam-pen-thai (Buddhadasa and the new generation: when youth asks about the root of Thainess)
(Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1983), pp. 60 - 93.
7 Tavivat Puntarigvivat, “Bhikkhu Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism in dialogue with Latin
American liberation theology”, Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1994.
8 Santikaro Bhikkhu, “Four noble truths of Dhammic Socialism”, Jonathan Watts, Alan Senauke,
and Santikaro Bhikkhu (eds.), Entering the realm o f reality: towards dhammic societies (Bangkok:
INEB, 1997), pp. 8 9 - 1 6 1 .
254
developed his concept of Dhammic Socialism. His civic-minded followers explored the
concept’s application to real society. Regarding social issues, the two ideological
systems were in conflict over the priority of three contradicting values or
methodologies: material vs. spiritual development; social structure vs. the individual to
be reformed for a better society; and armed struggle vs. non-violent methods to be used
for radical change. The main factor that determined whether Marxism or Buddhism
became a dominant intellectual current was the strength or impetus of domestic and
international communist movements in each period. Through these intellectual conflicts
with Marxism, Thai Buddhists, such as Buddhadasa and his lay followers, developed
social aspects of Buddhism from a Buddhist scriptural, philosophical tradition to create
guiding principles for contemporary social reform.
The development of social aspects in Thai Buddhism during the 1960s and the
1990s can be divided into three periods according to its relation with the communist
movement. The first period is from the 1960s through to the 14 October 1973 uprising.
Under the military dictatorship in this period, not only were the political activities of the
Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) suppressed, but also critical social analysis based
on Marxism was banned from discussion in the public sphere. Buddhist intellectuals,
including Buddhadasa, developed a critical view of society in the absence of Marxism.
The second period began with the expulsion of the military dictators on 14 October
1973 and faded out in the early 1980s. With the abrupt liberalisation of political
expression, the influence of the CPT spread rapidly within the student activist
movement during this period. The more radicalising the insurgency conflict, the more
students of dogmatic Marxism were likely to be attached to it. In this trend, Buddhist
students ignored or even abandoned Buddhism as well as Buddhadasa’s proposal of
Dhammic Socialism in order to take part in the revolutionary movement, which
ideologically did not go together with Buddhism. However, some of these students
returned to Buddhism after their radical experiences. This was the third period from the
late 1970s into the 1990s. Student activists became disappointed with the uncritical
attitudes of the CPT’s executives toward the Chinese Communist Party, and sought
complementing viewpoints in Buddhism, which Marxism had dismissed. In this process,
Buddhist intellectuals and activists developed the social dimensions of Buddhism into
concrete projects of social reform. Such as Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism, which
255
was more discussed by his followers for application in practical situations.
Based on a broad outline of ideological currents in Thailand from the 1960s to
the 1990s, first I will examine Buddhadasa’s social thought, which was elaborated to
overcome the perceived defects of Buddhism in the face of Marxism, especially during
the 1960s and 1970s. Second, I will present how Buddhadasa’s lay followers struggled
with ideological challenges from Marxism, and the way they explored their social
engagement from Buddhist perspectives on this dialectic. Through Buddhadasa and his
lay followers, called “engaged Buddhists”, this chapter will demonstrate one of the most
significant discussions and activities in the recent Buddhist public sphere and also in the
contemporary intellectual history of Thailand.

1. Development of Buddhadasa’s social thought and Dhammic Socialism

The “revolution” in October 1958 had a great impact on the public sphere in
Thailand. Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, who seized power in September 1957, needed
yet another coup to shut down the “noise” in the system of democracy, such matters as
legislators’ corruption, the critical press, and demand of labour welfare, which was
promoted by Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram for the legitimacy of his government. In
the scenario of the “revolution” in October 1958, Sarit played the role of a paternalistic
leader who had come to reinstall indigenous values and authority in place of the alien
system of parliamentary democracy and the constitution. Sarit enacted martial law,
ushered in a military dictatorship, and oppressed any critical intellectuals by accusing
them of being “communist”9. This meant the end of the relatively liberal period, during
which a lot of Marxist literature was produced by Thai intellectuals. Marxism was
expelled from the public sphere of Thailand by the military dictatorship of Sarit and his
successors, Thanom Kittikachon and Praphat Charusathian.
Although the social criticism of Marxism was strictly restricted, Thai economy
and society were transformed. Under the rule of Sarit’s “revolutionary council”,
“materialism” in the sense of consumerism was promoted in Thailand more greatly than

9 Thak Chaloemtiarana, Thailand: the politics o f despotic paternalism (Bangkok: Social Science
Association of Thailand, Thai Khadi Institute, Thammasat University, 1979); Wyatt, David K.,
Thailand: a short history (Chiangmai: Silkworm books, 1982, 1984), pp. 278 - 285.
256
ever. Allied with the United States, the Thai military provided the Americans with a key
strategic base for the Vietnam War against the communist insurgency in Indochina, and
in exchange, sought resources for their commercial opportunity based on US investment.
For the domestic campaign, the anti-communist military dictatorship propagated
slogans such as “work is money, money is work which creates happiness”, and
advertised its success in vivid material improvement with slogans such as “flowing
water, bright electricity, and good highways”10. Because of the US military presence,
the Thai economy rapidly expanded not only in the construction but also in the service
sectors such as the sex industry to meet the demands of foreigners. In addition to
strategic investment from the United States, Japanese investment increased rapidly from
the late 1960s due to the Japanese domestic wage rise, which pushed them to seek
cheaper labour for labour-intensive operations*11. As a result, Japanese consumer goods
flooded Thai markets. It was during the period of Sarit and the succeeding
Thanon-Prapnat regimes that great changes in material life took place in Thailand. The
social and economic transformation provoked a critical discourse against these changes.
Buddhism fulfilled this role by supplying a vocabulary and ideas for critical discourse.

Buddhadasa’s understanding, of watthuniyom

Buddhadasa was one of the Buddhist intellectuals who developed social
criticism from Buddhist philosophical foundations. Buddhadasa began intensively
discussing social issues in his lecture series, Boromatham “ (the supreme dhamma),
given in 1969 to a group of Chulalongkom University students who were temporarily
ordained as monks. In those lectures, watthuniyom or “materialism” was one of the key
issues that Buddhadasa criticised in the way that he understood the term13.

10 Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker, Thailand: economy and politics (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press, 1995), p. 130.
11 Pasuk and Baker, Thailand: economy and politics, pp. 137 - 138.
12 The record of the Boromatham lecture series is published in two volumes of Buddhadasa’s series
of works, Thammakhot: Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham: oprom phiksu nisit chulalongkon
mahawitthayalai phansa pi 2512 (Supreme dhamma: training for student monks from
Chulalongkom University in the 1969 rain retreat) (Chaiya: Mulanithi thammathan, 1982), part I, II.
13 Watthuniyom is a very confusing word in Thai. Originally the Thai term, watthuniyom, was coined
for more specifically representing Marxism’s “historical materialism”, which is academically
defined as: “the causal primacy of men’s and women’s mode of production and reproduction of their
natural (physical) being, or of the labour process more generally, in the development of human
history” (Roy Bhaskar, “Materialism”, Tom Bottomore, Laurence Harris, V. G. Kiernan and Ralph
257
 In the lectures of B oro m a th a m , Buddhadasa rejected w atthuniyom or any kind
of material reductionism14, including both ideas of w atthu-niyom (Marxist idea of
materialism) and niyom -w atthu (favouring in material pleasures)13. In Buddhadasa’s
idea it must be m an o n iyo m or idealism16 instead of w a tthuniyom that people needed to
hold as a principle. Buddhadasa defined m anoniyom as “the knowledge of mind that can
control both body and mind” . The m anoniyom of Buddhadasa has to be distinguished
from those of ascetics who despise their body . It should be in the “middle way” (Pali:
majjhimä-patipada) of body and mind, but always under the control of the mind19.

Miliband (eds.),^4 dictionary of Marxist thought: second edition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), p. 369).
14 Buddhadasa did not always use the term, watthuniyom as the ‘historical materialism’ of Marxism.
Buddhadasa used the term watthuniyom more broadly than historical materialism, a way of thinking
that gives priority to the material to make a decision. In fact, Buddhadasa’s understanding agrees
with a dictionary definition of “materialism”, which is defined in its broadest sense, “whatever exists
just is, or at least depends upon, matter” (Roy Bhaskar, “Materialism”, p. 369). Buddhadasa’s
understanding of watthuniyom was criticised as confusion with niyom-watthu, which means
favouring material pleasure. Some of Buddhadasa’s followers who had contaci with Marxism, such
as Suphot Dantrakun, Naowarat Phongphaibun, and Prasoet Sapsunthon pointed out that
Buddhadasa misused the Marxist notion of “materialism” as niyom-watthu, or “favouring materials”.
Naowarat wrote a letter to Buddhadasa to suggest this misuse, but Buddhadasa did not answer
Naowarat (Suphot Dantrakun, interview, Bangkok, 8 October 1998; Naowarat Phongphaibun,
interview, Kanchanaburi, 2 February 1999. See also Naowarat Phongphaibun, “Watthuniyom -
chittaniyom kap phutthasasana” (Materialism - spiritualism and Buddhism) in Naowarat
Phongphaibun, Dap thi mok yu nai chiwon (A sword hidden under the yellow robe) (Bangkok: Suan
nangsu, 1978), pp. 231 - 237). Buddhadasa mentioned the same suggestion of Prasoet in his
interview with Phra Pracha (Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, Lao wai mua wai sonthaya:
atchiwaprawat khong than phutthathat (Talking in the twilight years: an autobiography of Venerable
Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1988), p.340). On the other hand, Pracha
Hutanuwat supported Buddhadasa’s criticism of watthuniyom including the notion of Marxism and
addiction in material satisfaction (Pracha Pasannathammo, Phra, “Than phutthathat kap kanpatiwat
watthanatham” (Ven. Buddhadasa and revolution in culture), Phutthathat kap khon run mai, pp. 161
- 162).
15 Watthuniyom or the Thai translation of materialism is often not understood as “historical
materialism” because of the word, niyom. As a verb niyom means “to define, to prescribe”, and “to
like, to favour”, whereas as a suffix, niyom makes a compound noun that indicates an ideology, just
like “-ism” in English. In combination with the Thai word, watthu, which means “materials” and the
suffix, niyom, watthu-niyom could be read as a tendency that people indulge themselves in material
happiness.
16 For the Thai translation of “idealism”, Buddhadasa used the word, manoniyom, but chittaniyom is
more often used in general. This could be because Buddhadasa wanted to distinguish his position
from those anti-communist Buddhist elites who insisted on Buddhism as chittaniyom as Samak
Burawat criticised in his article. See Chapter V, pp. 239 - 240.
17 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, p. 46.
18 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, p. 174.
19 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, pp. 46, 60. Buddhadasa presented a concept of
Thamma-niyom (Dhamma-ism) as the middle way of the body and mind, or of materialism and
spiritualism. However, the concept of thammaniyom can be represented by manoniyom since through
the concept of thamma-niyom, Buddhadasa insisted a position of manoniyom, which did hold both
the material or body and the mind in control under the supervision of the mind. However,
Buddhadasa’s idea of material poverty, which is reduced to the mental attitude, such as idleness, is
questioned by Marxists and social thinkers (Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, pp. 175 -
258
 Buddhadasa insisted that watthuniyom means the system of ideas that gave

kilesa , or one’s never satisfied desire, a decisive authority to control the world. In the

ideological system of watthuniyom, people are only concerned with the happiness

coming from material satiation and sensual pleasure. The heavenly happiness, according

to Buddhadasa, also belonged to watthuniyom rather than manoniyom, although people

often took it reversed, and made it a reason not to listen to religion, which is on the side

of manoniyom. People tended to think that the heaven was a lie, which deceived the

people to expect a nonexistent dream. Because the materialists accordingly considered

nibbäna like a materialistic paradise of total satisfaction of their desires, they did not

believe in religion. Buddhadasa strongly censured them,

They do not understand as the scripture meant. It is because they do not expect
anything else but kämärammana (sense-desire)20.

This claim of manoniyom was connected with his insistence of boromatham21,

or the highest ethics that should rule ail areas of the world. Ethics or morality should not

be one of the subjects that school children have to leam at school to move up a grade22.

Politics, economics, education, and everything in the world must be commanded by

boromatham, or the ethics of a human being knowing justice. Buddhadasa rejected all
methods to solve contemporary social problems. His point was that people only looked

at the immediate cause of the problems without considering the most fundamental cause.

For example, insufficient food, shelter, and oil were merely immediate causes of

problems, but the fundamental cause could not be solved by supplying materials.

Spending a lot of money on distributing food cannot solve poverty23. Buddhadasa

argued that these materials were insufficient, since the desire of human beings was

176).
20 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, pp. 5 0 - 5 1 .
21 The key word of the lecture, boromatham, was dug up from the Pali scriptures in order to find an
expression, which corresponded to a Latin word, Summum Bonum. According to Buddhadasa,
Summum Bonum means ‘the utmost goodness that man can get in this very life’. It entails four
things: happiness, perfectness, duty for duty’s sake, and universal love (Phutthathat Phikkhu,
Boromatham phak ton, p. 65). Buddhadasa admitted that the word boromatham was not common in
ordinary Thai, but had been used in Buddhism. Buddhadasa quoted the word boromatham from a
saying of the Buddha, nibbanam paramam vadanti buddhä (The buddhas say nibbäna is boromatham, or
the supreme dhamma)’, and an ancient Indian saying, ahusä paramo dhammo (Ahimsa is the
boromatham, or the supreme dhamma) (Boromatham phak ton, p. 61, 71). In the state of boromatham,
any kinds of suffering are extinguished both within oneself and in the community of people.
22 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, p. 205.
23 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, pp. 192 - 193.
259
never ending because of “materialism”. He believed that if people paid respect to the
dhamma, they did not desire unnecessary luxury, and then materials in the world would
be in surplus. Buddhadasa insisted that we had to look at the fundamental cause of
materialism in egoism24. People seek something novel, which can satisfy their kilesa
(defilement) that is heading towards materialism. They produce materials to take
advantage of others. They consider the material as a god or a good thing to hold. No one
ever looked at boromatham for the happiness and fulfilment of a human being" .
Buddhadasa insisted that without boromatham, the world would be in chaos no matter
how materials were developed by sensual desire. Boromatham is the underlying
message of Buddhadasa to warn the contemporary world from his fundamentally
religious view.
Buddhadasa’s strong critique of materialism was a product of his contemporary
society in the late 1960s. Even though Buddhadasa was living in the forest in Southern
Thailand, which was far from the obscenely transformed capital and American military
bases in the Northeast, Buddhadasa did not shut out worldly issues, unlike less educated
forest meditation monks. Although other monks in Suan Mokkh, such as Kowit
Khemanantha, an educated artist monk who graduated from Sinlapakom University,
even did not know what happened on 14 October 1973, Buddhadasa caught upon
contemporary events by newspapers and radio . “Materialism”, an ideological system
in which people only seek material and sensual comfort, was a reality in Thailand since
the Cold War policy of the American-allied Thai military regimes affected the values of
Thai people. In this condition, even though he opposed any materialism, including that
of Marxism, Buddhadasa’s ideological position could never be regarded as conservative
right against the Marxist left. Because of his characteristic criticism of the existing
social and political conditions, the Buddhist teaching of Buddhadasa was an alternative
critical discourse when Marxism was absent in the Thai public sphere during the period
of strong censorship27.

24 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, pp. 196 - 198.

25 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Boromatham phak ton, pp.203 - 205.
26 Kowit Khemanantha, interview, 29 January 1999; Phra Pracha,Zao waz..., p. 563.
2/ The tendency to intoxicating material pleasure did not end with Vietnam War, nor with the end of
the Cold War in Southeast Asia. Buddhadasa kept placing emphasis on ‘retrieving the world from
the power of materialism’ as one of the three wishes (Thai: panithan 3 prakan) that he would like
himself and other people to pursue in his later years. According to Seri Phongphit, Buddhadasa’s
260
The development of Dhammic Socialism
The 14 October uprising in 1973 was led by students’ and people’s demands
for the permanent constitution, which was abolished by Thanom’s “revolution” in
November 1971. People’s demonstrations finally expelled the dictators, Thanom and
Praphat, who were also denied support by both the military and the King. This event
brought a great change in the Thai public sphere. Under the Sanya Dhammasakdi
interim government, which was selected and appointed by the King, and under the
succeeding governments established by parliamentary procedure defined in the new
constitution of October 1974, Marxist literature written in the late 1940s and the 1950s
was allowed to be republished. Those Marxist publications gained popularity amongst
the Thai people who had been kept away from political critiques. Based on the
increasing popularity of Marxism, the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) incorporated
socially concerned students to its youth organisations through the network of its agent
students and intellectuals“ . This powerful current of Marxism and the CPT had a great
impact on Buddhadasa who had been, in his thought, attempting to cultivate a social
dimension.
In the background of Buddhadasa’s extensive propagation of Dhammic
Socialism after the 14 October 1973 uprising, it was perceived to be fashionable or
progressive to use the terms, sangkhom-niyom (socialism) and sangkhom (society) in
Thai intellectual society during this time. These words reminded people of the good
image of a welfare state, which considers the life of people in society, contrary to the
military dictatorship before the uprising. In the mid-1970s Thailand the words
sangkhom or sangkhomniyom were not a symbol of a subversive left, but were
perceived as progressive, not as radical as prachachon or muanchon, which means the

famous three wishes were first presented in the preface of a book, Phut-khrit nai thatsana than
phutthathat: chaikhwam haeng sasana khrit thi chaw phut khwan ruchak (Buddhist and Christian in
the view of Ven. Buddhadasa: the meaning of Christianity that Buddhists have to know) (Bangkok:
Samnakphim thianwan, 1984), which was transcribed and published from Buddhadasa’s lecture in
1979 (Seri Phongphit, interview, Bangkok, 5 May 1999). The three wishes include: 1. Each person,
without asking whether they are a Buddhist or believer of other religion, should understand his/her
own religion most deeply; 2. People in different religions should understand each other well; and 3.
They should retrieve friend human beings from the influence of materialism (Phut-khrit nai thatsana
than Phutthathat, p. (5)).
28 Morell and Chai-anan, Political conflict in Thailand, pp. 137 - 180.
261
people or the “masses”29. Based on this popular image of sa n g kh o m n iyo m , some liberal

but conservative politicians, such as Seni Pramoj, the first Prime Minister in the elected

parliament after 14 October, insisted that Thailand should be sangkhom niyom even

though he opposed communisnT0. In these conditions, Buddhadasa, as well as other

intellectuals, would have had a positive image of the concept of sa n g kh o m n iyo m , not

necessarily because Buddhadasa was inclined to leftist ideologies. In the 1970s,

Buddhadasa propagated his concept of tham m ika-sangkhom niyom (i.e., Dhammic

Socialism), or a kind of socialism ruled by the d h a m m a , through which he presented a

picture of an ideal society.

Although it is very difficult to determine the first time Buddhadasa presented

the concept of Dhammic Socialism, Buddhadasa gave numerous sermons on this topic

after the 14 October 1973 uprising^1. Whatever the date, pocketbooks containing

29 Anut Aphaphirom, interview, Bangkok, 17 August 1999.

30 Another politician, Kukrit Pramoj, who became the Prime Minister after Seni Pramoj, preferred
the word, sangkhom, even though he opposed communism from a liberal conservative point of view.
Kukrit named his party Phak kit sangkhom or the Social Action Party, which was modelled after the
People’s Action Party in Singapore. In order to give a progressive, welfare oriented meaning to his
party, but to avoid the radical connotation of the word, ‘people’, Kukrit chose the word, sangkhom
for the name of his party. The example of Kukrit also suggests that the word sangkhom or
sangkhomniyom was perceived as a good progressive image even by a conservative politician, who
was not a leftist (Anut Aphaphirom, interview).
31 This is because of the incomplete collections of Buddhadasa’s sermons available for my research,
as well as those of his disciples. Dhammic Socialism seems to be Buddhadasa’s coinage, although
there was ‘Buddhist Socialism’ in U Nu’s Burma in the 1950s and Prince Sihanouk’s Cambodia in
the 1960s. Buddhadasa actually witnessed Buddhist socialism in Burma under the U Nu regime
when he attended the Sangayanä convocation for settling canonical questions on the Tipitaka in Burma
in 1957 C.E. or in the year 2500 of the Buddhist calendar. At least Buddhadasa had an interest in U
Nu’s thought as he translated and published a speech of U Nu in his journal, Phutthasasana in
February 1954, if not specifically on ‘Buddhist Socialism’. The original title of this speech of U Nu
was given as “a new method”, and it was delivered on 29 November 1953 at the conference for
International Buddhist Culture. In the conference, there was a ceremony for relocating relics of
Säriputta and Moggalläna, the two best disciples of the Buddha, in Sanchi, India (U Nu, “Kanbanru
makphon samai kung phutthakan” (the original English title: “Accomplishing the enlightenment in
the half Buddhist era”), Phutthasasana, Vol. 22 No. 1 (February 1954), pp. 33 - 34). There are some
hints of Buddhadasa’s search for social dimensions in Buddhism, although it is very hard to assert
the beginning of his Dhammic Socialism. Buddhadasa preached on dhamma's relevance to
contemporary society and politics, at least from 1947 onwards, when he lectured on
“Buddha-Dhamma and the spirit of Democracy” at the Buddhist Association of Thailand with an
audience of Pridi Phanomyong, the former regent of King Rama VIII. In this lecture, Dhammic
Socialism had not yet appeared, the lecture interestingly indicates Buddhadasa’s sources of ideas on
society in the Aggahha sutta, a Buddhist scripture, which he continued referring to in his Dhammic
Socialism. In this lecture, Buddhadasa did not intend to teach democracy, but instead, to teach the
Buddha-Dhamma of his religious interpretation, through the concepts of ‘democracy’ consisting of
liberty, equality, and brotherhood. He was trying to call people’s attention to the essence of
Buddhism by comparing the meanings of democracy and dhamma for those who were concerned
with democracy (Phutthathat Phikkhu, Phuttha-tham kap chetanarom khong prachathipatai
(Buddha-Dhamma and the spirit of Democracy) (Nonthaburi: Kong thun wutthi tham)). In
262
collections of his sermons on Dhammic Socialism appeared from November 1973

onwards “. There are 3,500 pages of his lectures on society, originally spoken between

1973 and 1976 in the seven volumes of Thammakhot (Dhamma propagation), the series

of sixty-three volumes of Buddhadasa’s worksj3.

Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism developed simultaneously with the

radicalised politics of the 1970s. When Buddhadasa gave his sermons in November

197334, a month after the 14 October uprising, he declared that all religions were

“socialist” ( sangkhomniyom ) in the sense that they taught to actualise a harmonious

balance in society by reducing individual greediness, which was morally wrong to

extract surplus value from people . The historical events o f the 14 October uprisings, in

which the military fired on protesters, brought about the first direct intervention into

politics by the current king of Thailand, King Rama IX, to settle the problem. The King

asked Thanom and Prapat to leave the country, and replaced the Prime Minister with

Sanya Dhammasakdi who was his own selection. The King also dismissed all the

members of the constitution-drafting committee appointed by the Thanom regime, and

appointed a new National Assembly. The important role of the king coincided with

Buddhadasa’s proposal in September 197436 for a ‘dictatorship of the dhamma’

(padetkan doi tham ). In this lecture, Buddhadasa gave a clearer definition to his 1973

Buddhadasa’s sermon, “Buddhism and society” in 1952, he did not mention Dhammic Socialism,
and his Buddhist view on society seems to have not developed as much as in his lectures on
Dhammic Socialism in the 1970s. During the eight years after October 1958, Karuna Kusalasai said
that he and his fellow communist-charged prisoners were delighted to listen to Buddhadasa’s
preaching about Dhammic Socialism when they were in jail, but I could not find a record of that
sermon (Karuna Kusalasai, interview, Bangkok, 6 November 1998).
32 For examples, there are such pocketbooks as: Phutthathat Phikkhu, Kanmuang khu thamma
(Politics is the dhamma) (Bangkok: Arun withaya); and Phutthathat Inthapanyo, Thammika
sankhomniyom (Bangkok: Sayam prathet, 1995).
33 Phaisan indicates Mua thamma khrong lok (When dhamma rules the world), Silatham kap
manusayalok (Morality and the human world), Thamma sacca songkhro (Truth of dhamma helps),
Ariyasilatham (Saint morality), Kan-klap-ma haeng silatham (Return to morality), Thamma kap
kanmuang (Dhamma and politics), and Yaowachon kap silatham (Youth and morality). See, Phaisan
Wongwarawisit, “Than Phutthathat kap thammika sangkhomniyom” (Ven. Buddhadasa and
Dhammic Socialism) in Phutthathat kap khon run mai, p. 61.
34 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Prachathipatai baep sangkhomniyom” (Democracy in the style of
socialism), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Kanmuang khu thamma, pp. 136 - 174. This was originally spoken
in November 1973.
3i Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Prachathipatai baep sangkhomniyom”, p.149.
36 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Sangkhomniyom tarn lak haeng phra sasana” (Socialism according to the
principle of religion), Thammika sankhomniyom, pp. 57 - 110. This lecture was translated into
English and given the title, “A dictatorial Dhammic Socialism” by Donald K Swearer (Bhikkhu
Buddhadasa, Dhammic Socialism (Bangkok: Inter-Religious Commission for Development, 1986),
pp. 77 - 100). This was originally spoken in September 1974.
263
sermon about Dhammic Socialism, which entailed simply adding the ‘dhamma’ to his
idea of ‘socialism’ to distinguish it from communism and its negative associations.
When the situation became more devastating after the people’s victory over the military
dictatorship, the communist camp itself was splitting and fighting with in itself in the
name of respective ideologies. Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism became an ideology
to protect from bloody, dogmatic socialism37. Buddhadasa started criticising worldly
socialism after 1975, when the communist victory in Vietnam stimulated an escalation
of turbulence within Thailand. A lot of suspected political activists were assassinated by
right-wing vigilante groups and security forces until the firefight at Thammasat
University on 6 October 1976. During 1976, Buddhadasa spoke only a little about
“socialism” or Dhammic Socialism even though he kept teaching about a righteous
political rule38. Possibly this was because of the policy of brutal assassination of
communist suspects in the lead up to the 6 October massacre. Buddhadasa returned to
speaking about Dhammic Socialism in public in September 1979 in a radio broadcast .
By 1979, the social confusion in Thailand had settled with the army regaining power,
and students had started returning home from the jungle where they had fought in the
armed struggle for the Communist Party of Thailand. Buddhadasa’s social thought
became more popular after that time.
Dhammic Socialism contains three aspects: (1) Buddhadasa’s reflections on the
social aspects of Buddhism inspired by socialism; (2) the dictatorship of the dhamma, or
righteousness; and (3) Dhammic Socialism in contrast with worldly socialism.

(1) Discovering the social aspects of Buddhism

Buddhadasa discovered that ‘socialism’ is in accord with the teaching of
non-egoism in Buddhism. For Buddhadasa, sangkhomniyom (socialism) means to love
society, not solely to love oneself40. The love of others worked out in socialism

37 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Sangkhomniyom chanit thi chuai lok dai” (A kind o f socialism that can
help the world), Thammika sankhomniyom, pp. I l l - 150. This was originally spoken in May 1975.
38 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Thamma kap kanmuang, kanmuang kap thamma” (Dhamma and politics,
politics and dhamma ), Kanmuang khu thamma, pp. 1 - 76; Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Kanmuang chanit
chuai lok dai” (A kind of politics that can help the world), Kanmuang khu thamma, pp. 89 - 135.
These lectures were originally given in July 1976.
39 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Thamma nai thana latthi kanmuang” (Dhamma as an ideology o f politics),
Kanmuang khu thamma, pp. 77 - 88. This was originally spoken in 1979.
40 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Thamma nai thana latthi kanmuang”, p. 85. As Pricha indicated, the
264
coincided with religion teaching the destruction of egoism (khwam-hen-kae-tua), which
tends to follow the way of kileso41. When people do not think of taking advantage for
themselves, they can consider others (hen kae phu un) in society at large. In this sense,
all religions that teach not to be egoistic are socialistic in that they give priority to the
community over the individual.
Buddhadasa named the socialism that he discovered in Buddhism, Dhammic
Socialism. That is the socialism containing the dhamma. Buddhadasa defined the dhamma

as having four meanings: 1) dhammajäti (nature) itself, or phenomena; 2) the laws of

nature; 3) duty in accordance with the law of nature; and 4) fruit from duty in
accordance with the law of nature. By nature, according to Buddhadasa, all creatures do
not need a surplus, which is in excess of their requirements for living. They just need
the amount that can fill their stomachs. Nature has a harmonious balance of coexistence
with everyone consuming just what they need. This is the spirit of socialism with the
“dhamma of dhammajäti’, the law of nature that naturally (Thai: doi thammachat;
Pali: dhammajäüf~ exists.
Buddhadasa explained that this natural balance of ‘socialism’, in which no one
has to accumulate more than necessary, collapsed when some individual started
accumulating a surplus for their own use. This incident coincided with the birth of
kilesa (defilement), to take advantage for oneself at the expense of others. Food and
commodities became insufficient because of people’s egoism, which was stimulated by
kilesa, when they accumulated a ‘surplus’ unnecessary for their survival43. The way to
restore the original socialism of nature, Buddhadasa argued, was to restrict the kilesa,
the fundamental cause of problems in society. This was Buddhadasa’s invention to
combine the notion of surplus value in Marxism with non-egoism in Buddhism.

(2) The dictatorship of the dhamma (padetkan doi tham)

Buddhadasa asserted the dictatorship of the dhamma, or righteousness as a

‘socialism’ that Buddhadasa meant was a kind of collectivism (latthi suan ruam), an antonym of
individualism (latthi ekkathet). Buddhadasa preached that socialism should place emphasis on
society rather than individuals (Pricha Changkhwanyun, Kkvjam-kh.it thang kanmuang khong than
phutthathat phikkhu, p. 93).
41 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Prachathipatai baep sangkhomniyom”, p.149.
42 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Prachathipatai baep sangkhomniyom”, p. 153.
4j Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Sangkhomniyom chanit thi chuai lok dai”, p. 124.
265
means for restoring Dhammic Socialism, or the harmonious balance of nature. For

Buddhadasa, a dictatorship of righteousness was the most effective method to actualise

the good in this world. Buddhadasa found the ideal dictatorship of the dhamma in the

Buddhist scriptures and ancient history.

In the Buddhist scripture, an ideal monarch should have ten virtues, called

dasaräjadhamma, which are, Buddhadasa believed, filled with the spirit of Dhammic

Socialism. Dasaräjadhamma comprises the ten rules of the d h a m m a for a ruler of the world

as defined in Buddhist scripture. The ten rules include alms-giving (Pali: däna), morality

(siJa), liberality (pariccaga), straightness (ajjava), gentleness (maddava), self-restriction

( tapo), non-anger (akkodha), non-hurtfulness (avihimsa ), forbearance (khantl), and

non-opposition ( avirodhana).

Buddhadasa argued that there is no reason for such a monarchy with this

dasaräjadhamma, which embodies the spirit of socialism, to be abolished as was the Thai

absolute monarchy in the constitutional reform of 1932. A monarchy with

dasaräjadhamma would immediately actualise good in the world, and no misconduct

would ever take place44. For Buddhadasa, it was to be a monarchy such that within the

individual bad personality traits would be expelled4^. Buddhadasa insisted that the
system of monarchy over the country should be maintained, but that appropriate virtue
be fostered in the person of the king.

(3) Dhammic Socialism in contrast to worldly socialism

The difference between Dhammic Socialism and Marxist socialism became

apparent when Buddhadasa contrasted Dhammic Socialism with worldly socialism.

Buddhadasa’s socialism, which is supported by the law of nature and Buddhist virtues,

should be distinguished from Marxist socialism in three ways46.

First, Buddhadasa’s socialism is a system of morality, which has little to do

44 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Sangkhomniyom tam lak haeng phra sasana”, pp. 97 - 99.
45 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Sangkhomniyom tam lak haeng phra sasana”, pp. 86 - 88.
46 There is actually a fourth difference between Buddhadasa and orthodox Marxism, concerned with
historical materialism, which I have already argued in the above discussion. In short, Buddhadasa’s
socialism is not economic determinism in accordance with historical materialism of Marx.
Buddhadasa’s socialism is even distinguished from the common definition of ‘socialism’ among
Thai intellectuals, which usually means justice in distribution without threatening the monarchy and
religion. Buddhadasa’s socialism aims at a fundamental order of righteousness without favouring
either the poor or the rich.
266
with the economic exploitation that Marxist socialism attempts to overcome by
structural economic remedies. Any kind of disequilibrium is caused by the lack of
morality. Buddhadasa insisted that nothing could exist normally without having morality.
In a system of politics, which is ‘concerned with many people5, and thus has an
inclination towards trouble, morality exists if people can solve problems properly. The
economic system is also a system of morality relating to consumption47. In short,
socialism in Buddhadasa’s thought is a system of morality in every arena of human
activity - a system that gives society normality or the happiness of normality.
Second, Buddhadasa’s socialism is completely different from Marxism with
regard to class. It has no mention of a class conflict over the modes of production.
Buddhadasa understood that it was natural that classes come about according to
people’s deeds and depending upon their different capabilities and wisdom . When
Buddhadasa looked at poverty, he did not seek its reasons in structural economic
relationship and in its historical development as Marxism explored. Rather, he consider
the reason for poverty to be in individual deeds in the past, for example, not being
diligent enough, and spending a lot of money on gambling and drinking. Buddhadasa
reduced all the causes of poverty to moral problems. Some of his followers, such as
Prawase Wasi, did not agree with this, however, and later re-examined this issue.
Thirdly, Buddhadasa’s socialism denied a punishment or violent sanction
(iatchaya) that would eventually take people’s lives49. This is in contrast to the
communist strategy of armed struggle. He urged Buddhists to learn harmonious
socialism arising from tradition, which was part of their very being, so as to make it
their weapon with which to protect their country against the bloodthirstiness and
dogmatism of worldly socialism50. Buddhadasa compared his Dhammic Socialism with
the situation of back-burning a fire around a house to protect it against a bush fire,
which was worldly socialism. The dhamma is the weapon to intercept this socialism
which caused people to be divided and at each other’s throats due to conflicts over

47 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Sangkhomniyom tam lak haeng phra sasana”, pp. 59 - 63.
48 Phutthathat Phikkhu, Kan to tan kae khai khwam-wiparit khong lok (2519) (a booklet for free
distribution; 27 May 1977), p. 4.
49 Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Kanmuang chanit thi chuai lok dai”, p. 90.; Phutthathat Phikkhu, “Thamma
nai thana latthi kanmuang”, pp. 85 - 86.
50 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Sangkhomniyom chanit thi chuai lok dai”, p. 115.
267
dogma31. Dhammic Socialism was a counter to socialism as it was being expounded at
that time, rather than an affirmation of communism.
Among these three characteristics of Dhammic Socialism: (1) the harmonious
order of nature, which coincided with socialism; (2) the dictatorship of the dhamma or
kingly virtues; (3) differences with worldly socialism, Buddhadasa’s disciples who call
themselves ‘engaged Buddhists’ took on the significance of Dhammic Socialism
selectively. The first characteristic is understood and accepted as a foundation to look at
social order from a Buddhist philosophical perspective presented in the Pali scriptures52.
However, probably few of Buddhadasa’s disciples were totally convinced by the second,
dictatorial character of Dhammic Socialism . Those who experienced the overthrow of
the military dictatorship in the 14 October uprising did not weigh up dictatorship against
democracy, even though they understood that the dhamma, which is perfectly just and
right, should rule the world. Some agree that Buddhadasa was able to govern Suan
Mokkh in a dictatorial method, and everybody approved his decisions as consistent with
the dhamma, but no one except Buddhadasa is confident or respected enough to
administer such a group of people34. The most significant insights of Dhammic
Socialism were contained in the third characteristic, which Buddhadasa contrasted with
worldly socialism. All Buddhadasa’s followers, who call themselves ‘engaged
Buddhists’, had to confront Marxism, which was leaning more and more towards the
Communist Party of Thailand, during and after the radicalised political conflict in the
1970s and 1980s. Dhammic Socialism or Buddhism provided complementary
perspectives, which were absent in Marxist philosophy or the Marxist project of
socio-economic revolution. Marxism misses such perspectives as the necessity of
morality in any kind of administration, the common social goals beyond the conflicting
class interests, and the non-violent approach to the social problems, but these significant
points can be extracted from Dhammic Socialism or Buddhism. The socially engaged
Buddhists explored these points in Buddhism, and developed them further in their
activities, especially after the end of the 1970s.

51 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Sangkhomniyom chanit thi chuai lok dai”, p. 130.

32 Santikaro Bhikkhu, “Four noble truths of Dhammic Socialism”.
53 Sulak Sivaraksa, Bangkok, 19 March 1999; Phaisan Wisalo, Phra, Bangkok, 25 August 1999.

268
Response to Dhammic Socialism and Buddhadasa
Contrary to what one might expect, Dhammic Socialism was not in any way
popular among real communists or students who were attracted to Marxist ideologies
during the 1970s. Instead, Dhammic Socialism gained the support of conservative elite
Buddhists of good will, though they were never ultra-rightists against communism.
Buddhadasa was requested by the Ministry of Justice to preach “socialism” that had
been incorporated into religion to their new assistant judges in September 197455. The
journal, Phuttha-tham (Buddha-dhamma), the monthly publication of the Buddhist
Association of Thailand, which included high-ranking officials and rich Buddhist
celebrities as core members, extensively reprinted Buddhadasa’s teaching on socialism
and social justice from August 1974 to September 197656. It seems to have been the
influence of Sanya Dhammasakdi that explains why these elite organisations accepted
Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism. Sanya was an important lay disciple of Buddhadasa
from the beginning of Buddhadasa’s work, and influential both in the Ministry of
Justice and the Buddhist Association of Thailand as its president. Acceptance of
Dhammic Socialism in conservative elite organisations was based on the good public
perception about socialism in the early 1970s, as I have presented above.
Buddhadasa was not only popular among the progressive, tolerant elite, but
once an attempt was made to have him preach against communism. Since Buddhadasa
was one of the most influential preaching monks among his contemporaries, he was
approached by an American, who had possibly been sent by the CIA, to oppose
communists in his sermons. The American introduced himself to Buddhadasa as
Professor Dairekkoe from the Cultural Assistant of the USIS (the United States
Information Service)57. USIS was an American agency for anti-communist propagation
in Thailand operating since 1949. It hired “fairly prominent Thai” to translate
co
anti-communist literature from the Buddhist Society of London, for example . The

54 Kittisak Kittisophano, Phra, Bangkok, 25 August 1999.

55 Phutthathat Inthapanyo, “Sankhomniyom tam lak haeng phra sasana”, p. 57.
56 Sanya Thammasak, who was the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister (14
October 1973 - 15 February 1975) appointed by the King, and also a devoted follower of
Buddhadasa, was in charge of both the Ministry of Justice and the Buddhist Association of Thailand.
Sanya might have assisted the propagation of Buddhadasa’s idea of ‘socialism’.
57 This spelling of the name is transcribed from Thai script. His correct name in English cannot be
ascertained (Phra Pracha,Lao wai ... , p. 338).
i8 Daniel Fineman, A special relationship: the United States and military government in Thailand,
269
American man from USIS explained to Buddhadasa that Thailand had a duty to resist

communism, and Thailand would lose Buddhism if communists took over the country.

Buddhadasa answered the American, “We are more afraid of kilesa (defilement) than

communists”, but the American did not easily give up. The American stayed overnight,

and continued negotiating with several offers, such as loudspeakers and papers for

printing. However, Buddhadasa declined the American’s offers politely in order not to

make further communication with him. After the American left, Buddhadasa received

no further offers of this kind1*9.

As mentioned in Chapter V, some people believe that the CLA approached

Kittiwuttho after Buddhadasa declined to co-operate. Kittiwuttho was a young, capable

Abhidhamma preacher, who had been very popular on TV and radio since I96060. They

say that the CIA incited Kittiwuttho to attack Buddhadasa in his anti-communist

sermons61. Others believe that the CIA used Anan Senakhan to attack Buddhadasa in

retaliation for his lack of co-operation ". Phra Anan Chayanantho, or ordained Anan

Senakhan, criticised Buddhadasa for attracting the “N ew Left” of materialism, and their

characteristics were socialist rather than democratic idealism . These opponents of

1941 - 1958 (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997), p. 120.

59 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 338.
60 Kittiwuttho started his preaching after he was ordained in 1957 because he had already studied
Buddhist scriptures before his ordination. He began appearing on TV and radio in 1960, and had his
own radio station for propagation, the frequency he had obtained from the government, in 1967. In
my interview with Kittiwuttho, he denied any assistance or co-operation from American agencies.
He believes that Americans were happy to find his activities that taught people the danger of
communism, and the principles to maintain social order. He says that there is something that he
cannot propagate yet. He thinks that his devotion to protect the country should be appreciated
because it prevented the country following the confusion of Laos and Cambodia. He says that he did
his duty without receiving any benefit from anyone, and as a monk spent less than other people
(Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, interview, Chonburi, 29 April 1999). Sithawat, who lived in the Wat Mahathat
with Kittiwuttho in the late 1950s, admits that Kittiwuttho had an excellent memory, fluent speech,
and attractiveness. Kittiwuttho was very good at memorising details of Abhidhamma theory when
they studied together. It was his capability that allowed Kittiwuttho to work since he was a very
young monk without any certificate of ecclesiastical education (Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko,
interview, Bangkok, 30 April 1999).
61 See Chapter III, p. 168. Arun Wetchasuwan, who was ordained from 1962 to 1974, often saw
handbills accusing Buddhadasa of being a communist in 1975 and 1976 at his temple, the Wat
Chiangwai in Bangkok. Those monks who relied on superstitious magic put the handbills on the
notice board of their temple, because Buddhadasa’s teachings went against their activities. Those
handbills were believed to be produced by Kittiwuttho, although Arun does not have any concrete
evidence (Arun Wetchasuwan, interview, Bangkok, 2 March 1999).
62 Suphot Dantrakun, interview, Bangkok, 8 October 1998. Suphot says that he does not have any
evidence, but he inferred this from Anan’s anticommunist activities.
63 Phikkhu Chayanantho (Phra Anan Senakhan) (ed.), Khamson khong diarathi (Teachings of a
heretic) (Bangkok: Ongkan phithak phutthasat, 1979), p. 2.
270
Buddhadasa were involved with the anti-communist campaign anyway.
Even though Buddhadasa had never been a communist, neither politically nor
philosophically, Buddhadasa had been suspected as a communist by the CIA, by the
Thai secret police and even by real communists64. When Khemanantha stayed at Suan
Mokkh from 1967 to 1971, there was a foreign monk, who was ordained in Songkhla
province. The foreign monk was conducting research in the library of Suan Mokkh, and
investigating other monks there. The foreign monk did not deny it when someone asked
him whether he was from the CIA65. There was also a Thai secret policeman watching
Suan Mokkh. Police Colonel Chalat Saengchuthong was sent to watch Suan Mokkh
from the 1950s. However, Chalat later became a disciple of Buddhadasa because of his
job attending Buddhadasa very closely66. Buddhadasa also had a contact from a real
communist. A monk came to see Buddhadasa, and confessed that he was a member. The
monk thought that Buddhadasa was a communist or a communist sympathiser from the
beginning of their work. As soon as Buddhadasa denied this, the monk left Suan Mokkh
within less than an hour .
The suspicions that he was a communist damaged Buddhadasa’s reputation,
compared to the celebrated early days of his activities. People kept some distance from
him even though his preaching continued to be attractive for those who sought the
dhamma68. It took people a while, at most by the end of the 1980s, to recover from the
negative impression arising from the suspicion that Buddhadasa was a communist69.
In summary, Buddhadasa sought to provide the social aspect of Buddhism
while the powerful critique of Marxism was banned, but Thai society suffered from the
rapid economic change brought by the American-allied military government in the
1960s. Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism was elaborated and extensively promoted

64 About the first communist suspicions by Phra Thipparinya in 1948, see Chapter V, pp. 247 - 250.
65 Kowit Kemanantha, interview.
66 Phra Sithawat Waniwattiko, interview, Bangkok, 30 April 1999.
67 Phra Pracha, Lao wai ... , p. 339.
68 According to a conversation with Chitsai Padungrat on 21 May 1998, Chitsai was interested in
visiting Suan Mokkh when she first came to Chaiya for her job as a school inspector in the late
1960s. However, she could not find anyone who would take her to Suan Mokkh, because people
were afraid of being suspected as communists.
69 Buddhadasa’s regaining of social recognition is symbolised by the approval for building the Suan
Mokkh International as one of the celebration projects by the government of the sixtieth birthday of
King Rama IX in 1987. The land for the Suan Mokkh International was purchased within a few
months in 1982, and its construction was completed in 1986 with a lot of assistance from the public,

271
after the 14 October 1973 uprising, when most progressive intellectuals, including even
anti-communist intellectuals, perceived “socialism” as an order of social welfare,
instead of the process of the Marxist evolution of history into the ideal communist order.
Thus, Dhammic Socialism should not be understood as the propaganda of a monk who
was inclined towards the left or towards communism. As the political conflict became
more radical, Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism became more critical of worldly
socialism, which does not generate a harmonious order of nature or the dhamma.
However, Buddhadasa’s social thoughts, such as the critique of ‘materialism’ or
‘material fanaticism’ and Dhammic Socialism, should also not be understood as
anti-communist promotion. Buddhadasa directed equally strong criticism at
contemporary Thai society where a military dictatorship had installed itself, and
similarly criticised the ideological conflicts between the right and left and within the left,
all from a fundamental Buddhist point of view. Contrary to its name, Dhammic
Socialism was even critical of secular socialist ideologues who found enemies
everywhere and never ceased to struggle. This is why Dhammic Socialism was accepted
by those who were in the establishment of the Thai hierarchy, and is still found to be
relevant in contemporary society even after socialist states and Marxist discourse lost
their popularity.
However, during the period of Buddhadasa’s extensive preaching on social
issues from the 1960s to the 1990s, Thai students and activists did not always pay
respect to and follow Dhammic Socialism and the elaborated social aspects of
Buddhism. They had to experience Marxist ideologies and the communist movement to
find relevance for Buddhism in contemporary issues.

2. Ideological struggles of Buddhism and Marxism: the experience of Buddhadasa’s lay

followers

In spite of, or perhaps because of, the strict control of the military dictatorship,
the public sphere of Thailand became vigorous, especially after June 1968 when the
Thanom-Praphat government promulgated the new constitution. In December 1968,

as well (Metta Phanit, interview, Chaiya, 5 March 1999).

272
students from fifteen universities organised the Student Volunteer Group to Observe the
National Election in order to watch the February 1969 election, which was to be held
twelve years after the previous one. In major universities around this time too there
emerged small student groups for social and political discussions70. Buddhist intel­
lectuals were also involved in these students’ awareness of their contemporary society
and politics right up to 14 October 1973. It was not Buddhadasa alone who discussed
social issues from Buddhist perspectives. The interest and further discussions of lay
Buddhist intellectuals and students were essential for Buddhism to become an
influential critique of contemporary social issues. The role of Sulak Sivaraksa and his
group, who call themselves “engaged Buddhists”, was especially prominent. Through
his publications and organising seminars and groups, students in the eve of the 14
October uprising developed their concerns about society and politics. This Buddhist
networking of Sulak was one of the main ways for Marxists to return once again to be
involved to the Buddhist public sphere.

Buddhist intellectuals and students in discussion groups on social issues

Sulak Sivaraksa (1933 - ) is from a well-to-do family of Chinese descent,
wealthy enough to cover the cost of his studies in England to become a barrister,
although his family fortune has not permitted him to live without engaging in an
occupation. Sulak always needed to make a living using his skills and talents. Like
many other Chinese descendants in Thailand, Sulak also inherited Thai culture and
Buddhism because of his grandparents’ inter-marriage with ethnic Thai women who
were Buddhist. Although Sulak’s concern with Buddhism began in his childhood and
continued while he was in England, his contact with Buddhism belonged to the area of
conventional Buddhist beliefs and practices, which often involved supernaturalism72.

70 Morell and Chai-anan, Political conflict in Thailand, pp. 139 - 143.

71 About Sulak’s biography, see Sulak Sivaraksa, Loyalty demands dissent: autobiography of an
engaged Buddhist (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1998); So. Siwarak, Chuang haeng chiwit (A period of
my life) (Bangkok: Khlet Thai); So. Siwarak, Chuang lang haeng chiwit (The latter period of my
life) (Bangkok: Khlet Thai, 1997).
72 Sulak, Loyalty demands dissent, pp. 14 - 17. Sulak gradually became interested in the ‘modem
Buddhism’ discussed in Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, as well as in Suchiwo’s preaching,
and the works of Phra Phimolatham (Choi Thanathatto) (Sulak, Loyalty demands dissent, pp. 26, 32).
However, Sulak at first did not like Buddhadasa because of his radical teaching that the Buddha
image could become a hindrance to reach the dhamma. When he returned from England, Sulak read
a book of Buddhadasa’s, Tam roi phra arahan (Following the footprints of arahant) in a new light
273
Sulak was made aware of the role of Buddhism in social issues by Buddhadasa73, and

later also by Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto, who used to teach and work as the deputy secretary

general at the Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University from 1961 to 197474. Through

his refined sensitivity towards intellectual trends, his manner of networking with high

society, and his skill in a communication, Sulak became an important social critic and

developed his role as an “engaged Buddhist” in the Buddhist public sphere of Thailand.

Returning from England in 1962 under the military dictatorship, Sulak

demonstrated his ability as an editor of such journals as Sangkhomsat parithat (Social

science review), and developed further opportunities to express his opinion as a social

critic. He was also involved in promoting monastic education, especially at

Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University and Wat Thongnopphakhun, which his family

has continued to support. Throughout the 1960s Sulak attempted to provide social

perspectives on issues such as conservation, peace and civil society. In his work on the

journal editorial board and about education on social issues for monks, it later became

known that Sulak had introduced funding from anti-communist agencies such as the

Asia Foundation75. However, Sulak was never an ideologue of these agencies, he

presented his own critical view on society which was sometimes intermingled with

(Sulak, Loyalty demands dissent, p.89).

/3 Sulak, Loyalty demands dissent, pp. 87 - 92. Although Sulak’s role in promoting Buddhadasa’s
social thought has been significant, Buddhadasa was not the only mentor of Sulak. In terms of
personal relationship, Sulak has had stronger ties with monks at Wat Thongnopphakhun and
Mahachulalongkon Buddhist University. Sulak does not hesitate to have a different view from
Buddhadasa, and sometimes he makes critical comments about Buddhadasa’s view. Before their first
meeting in the mid-1960s, when Sulak had just started the Social science review, both Buddhadasa
and Sulak were impressed by each other’s reading of their respective works (Phra Pracha, Lao wai
..., p. 401; Sulak, Loyalty demands dissent, p.89). Sulak’s writings on, and interviews with
Buddhadasa are collected in several books such as: S. Sivaraksa, “Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: a religious
innovator of undying face”, Siam in crisis (Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for
Development, 1990), pp. 224 - 248; So. Siwarak, “Than phutthathat phikkhu” (Ven. Buddhadasa
Bhikkhu), Phra di thi na ruchak (Good monks who are worth knowing) (Bangkok: Samnakphim
khlet thai, 1967, 1987), pp. 149 - 176; So. Siwarak, Itthiphon phutthathat to sangkhom (The
influence of Buddhadasa to society) (Bangkok: Khana kammakan sasana phua sangkhom, 1990); So.
Siwarak, Sonthana kap than phutthathat phikkhu (Interview with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) (Bangkok:
Khana kammakan sasana phua sangkhom, 1993).
74 P. A. Payutto (1939 - ) is also known by his ecclesiastical titles, Phra Siwisutthimoli (1969 -
1973); Phra Ratchawaramuni (1973 - 1987); Phra Thepweti (1987 - 1993); and Phra Thammapidok
(1993 - present). About the evaluation of P. A. Payutto by socially engaged Buddhists, see Phra
Phaisan Wisalo, So. Siwarak, Prawet Wasi, and Wira Sombun, Patthakatha khrop rop 60 pi phra
thammapidok (po. o. payutto): phuttha-tham kap udomkan samrap sattawat thi 21 (The memorial
lecture for sixty years of Phra Thammapidok: Buddha-Dhamma and the aim for the twenty-first
century) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimuthong, 1999).
75 Sulak, Loyalty demands dissent, p.87.
274
Buddhism. For example, Sulak attacked the problems of the class gap both in Thai
society and in Western material civilisation, and he insisted on the significance of
morality and ethics in actualising social justice 6. Although Sulak was suspected as both
a CIA agent and a communist because of his funding arrangements and critical opinions
respectively, he was skilled at discovering the abilities of young people, and giving
them a chance to develop it . This is why Sulak has been a respected mentor in student
discussion groups such as the Parithat Sewana (Critical discussion group) and the
Yaowachon Sayam (Young Siamese), especially before the 14 October 1973 uprising.
Before the uprising, the influence of Marxism had not yet arrived, and modem Buddhist
thought, such as that of Buddhadasa and P. A. Payutto Bhikkhu, was quite influential in
these discussion groups.
The Parithat Sewana was established by Buddhist students and intellectuals
after the seminar on “The Social and Ethical Responsibility of Youth for Siam” at the
Student Christian Centre in January 1966. This seminar, which was organised by a
Protestant group headed by Koson Sisan, invited famous Buddhist intellectuals such as
Sanya Dhammasakdi, Puey Ungphakorn, and Direk Chayanam to speak, and appealed
to students in every university for its audience. After the seminar, some students came
to Sulak for assistance in organising a group where Buddhist students would be able to
have similar opportunities to discuss social issues as the Christians had been doing. The
Parithat Sewana, the most famous student discussion group in the 1960s, was bom from
concerns with religions and society rather than with Marxism78.
In the Parithat Sewana79, there were mainly three sub-groups: a group for
public panel discussion, a group for editing the journal, Sangkhomsat parithat chabap
naksuksa (Social science review student edition), and a group for study trips to
provinces and ancient temples for fine art appreciation. For the public panel discussions,
Sulak invited those who had graduated from universities in Europe to express their
views. The student movement leaders after the 14 October uprising, including Seksan

/6 For examples of Sulak’s critiques in the 1960s, see S. Sivaraksa, Siam in crisis, part III.
7 Pracha Hutanuwat, interview, Bangkok, 1 May 1999.
78 Sulak Sivaraksa, Loyalty demands dissent, pp. 108 - 110; So. Siwarak, Chuang lang haeng chiwit,
pp. 103 - 116.
79 The following descriptions of Parithat Sewana are based on an interview with Phiphop Thongchai,
a regular member of the Parithat Sewana from the beginning (Phiphop Thongchai, interview,
Bangkok, 24 August 1999).
275
Prasoetkun, Weng Tochirakan, and Charan Ditthanphichai, were rather minor
participants who only listened to the panel discussions. They came to the panel
discussions of the Parithat Sewana in order to learn about progressive ideas in foreign
countries. In the group engaged in editing the journal, there were Khanchai Bunphan,
Suchit Wongthet, Nidhi Aeusrivongse, Komon Khimthong, and Phiphop Thongchai. All
later became famous and active in the area of journalism, academia, and were involved
in social activism. As these participants and activities suggest, the discussions in the
Parithat Sewana were led by the Buddhist Sulak and the Western educated progressive
elites, and the influence of Marxism and the Communist Party had arrived but had not
yet overwhelmed discussions80.
Aside from Sulak, among the participants in the Parithat Sewana, Weng
Tochirakan (1951 - ) 81 was one of the most devoted promoters of Buddhadasa. Weng
took part in the Parithat Sewana from the time he was in high school, and he later
became the president of the Mahidol University Student Club and was one of the
leaders of the May demonstration against General Suchinda in 1992. Weng was
impressed by Buddhadasa’s book, Koet ma thammai (Why were we born?) when he was
in junior high school, and from that time he began propagating Buddhadasa’s teachings
to his friends by distributing Buddhadasa’s books. Weng decided to follow as his
principle Buddhadasa’s saying, “not being egotistical, destroying egoism, and serving
the people”. When he was a Mahidol University student he started organising medical
students for voluntary public health activities and helping people wounded in
demonstrations \ Weng was called by his friend, “a commander of Suan Mokkh” (mae

80 Although in the Parithat Sewana there was some people such as Charan who had connection with
the Communist Party of Thailand, neither Marxism nor the Communist Party was influential.
81 When Weng entered the medical school of Mahidol University in 1968, he was seventeen years
old. Since Weng entered primary school when he was five, he graduated from his high school at the
age of sixteen. Weng’s experience described here is based on interviews with him by the author,
Bangkok, 23 December 1998 and 31 August 1999.
82 Weng started voluntary activities from his first year in Mahidol University in 1968. In his first
year, he was a secretary of the student body. In his second year in university, Weng became the
president of the Buddhist club at Mahidol University. He was not very active as its president because
he did not want to be involved in activities for Buddhist ceremonies, to which he did not want to be
attached. However, it was his third year when Weng started a social activity outside university. He
organised a medical volunteer group consisting of medical students to go to Khlong Toei slum. They
gave children vaccinations, took physical measurements, and gave advice not to become drug
addicts. In his fourth year, Weng co-ordinated a group ordination of twenty medical students. They
had an ordination ceremony at Wat Chonlaprathan by receiving precepts from Panyanantha Bhikkhu,
and then had training by Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh. Buddhadasa’s preaching to these medical
276
thap haeng suan mok). Weng’s example indicates that Buddhadasa’s guiding principle
for the present life was interpreted to apply to social engagement of activist students,

when Marxism was not yet dominant.

The other student discussion group, the Yaowachon Sayam, was established by

students at Suan Kulap High School, who sought advice from Sulak Sivaraksa. The

Yaowachon Sayam came to exist because of Pracha Hutanuwat and his friends, who

organised a group at a high school exhibition on society, and also a moot student

election campaign which was modelled on the general election in 1969 awaited for

twelve years. After their experiences in giving public speeches at these events, they

invited students in other high schools to found an inter-high school student organisation,
the Yaowachon Sayam .

In the beginning Marxist elements were also few in the newly founded
Yaowachon Sayam, although its members aimed at devoting themselves to the good of

society . Pracha was interested in the life of socially concerned student activists written

about in Komon Khimthong’s cremation volume. He got in touch with one of the editors

of the volume, Sulak Sivaraksa, and later with the university students in the Parithat

Sewana. As one of the first projects of the Yaowacho Sayam, Pracha organised a retreat
in early 1971 at the village of Samkhok on the outskirts of Bangkok. Pracha named this
retreat “Human potentiality training camp” (.Khai fu k kamlang khon). For this project,

Pracha got an idea from Komon Khimthon’s book, which stated from an insight from

Buddhism, namely that it is important to develop the human nature of social workers

themselves before working for society. Thus, this camp did not place emphasis on

constructing something for villagers, but invited lecturers to give students a talk. The

student monks is collected in Phutthathat Phikkhu (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), Mahidon tham (Mahitala
dhamma) (Chaiya: Mulanithi Thammatham). The Thai word mahidon is linked to two Sanskrit
words mahitala (surface of the earth) and mahidhara, literally a mountain but by extension meaning
something indestructible and strong. In his fifth year in medical school, Weng was the secretary
general of the Medical Student Club of Thailand (Chomrom nisit naksuksa phaet haeng prathet thai).
He organised medical students from Chulalongkom University, Sirirat Hospital, and Ramathibodi
Hospital to do medical examinations at Khong Toei slum every Saturday and Sunday (Weng,
interview, 23 December 1998).
83 Apart from Pracha, the original members of the Yaowachon Sayam included Santisuk Sophonsiri
and Wisit Wongwinyu, who later established the Ahimsa Group, which launched a journal,
Pacharayasan (Pracha Hutanuwat, interview, Bangkok, 1 May 1999).
84 The later generations of the Yaowachon Sayam became more radical in political activism, and a
member, Thongchai Winichakun became a student leader of 6 October 1976. Another member,
Phaisan Wongwarawisit, however chose a non-violent method for his activism, and he worked with

277
lecturers included both non-communists, such as Sulak Sivaraksa and Ravi Bhavilai, as
well as some university student activists connected to the Communist Party. Regardless
of the original founders’ intentions and concerns, the Communist Party agents came to
or

recruit students in the Yaowachon Sayam from the very first retreat they had . The
influence of Marxism and the Communist Party crept into these student discussion
groups also through the CPT mobilisers and students who had parents in the CPT86.
Buddhadasa’s thought was significant for the students in the Yaowachon
Sayam as well. Pracha Hutanuwat , one of its founders, was a prominent follower of
Buddhadasa. Pracha became interested in Buddhadasa’s books when he felt bored with
his elite high school life, though he was a selected student in the “King’s room” at Suan
Kulap High School. Pracha was deeply impressed by the book, Chit wang (Empty
mind), which was a summary of Buddhadasa’s teaching written by Pun Chongprasoet.
After reading this book, Pracha bought all of Buddhadasa’s books at the Thammabucha
Bookshop, and even visited Buddhadasa at Suan Mokkh by temporarily escaping school.
Pracha gave some public speeches on Buddhadasa’s teaching in his high school, and
received a good response from his friends, who then developed their network into the
Yaowachon Sayam.
Kanya Lilalai (1955 -) , a schoolgirl junior to Pracha, became interested in
Buddhadasa’s thought through the speech of Pracha at Suan Kulap. From Pracha, Kanya
borrowed a book by Buddhadasa, Tua ku khong ku (Me and mine), and understood the
essence of Buddhism. After reading this book, just like Pracha, Kanya also became a
regular customer of the Thammabucha Bookshop, which deals specifically with
on
Buddhadasa’s books . Kanya also became a member of the Yaowachon Sayam.
These students in the discussion groups in the 1960s were very good
academically. Their intellectual pursuit went far beyond the school curriculum, and they
sought new knowledge and the path to take for their life, society, and politics. Even

the Ahimsa Group (Pracha, interview).

85 Pracha, interview.
86 Phra Phaisan Wisalo, interview, Bangkok, 25 August 1999. Phaisan (1953 - ) was a member of
the Yaowachon Sayam, he is a year younger than Pracha.
87 The story of Pracha’s experience is based on an interview with him.
88 The story of Kanya’s experience is based on: Kanya Lilalai, interview, Bangkok, 18 December
1999; and Rudi Roengchai (pseudonym of Kanya Lilalai), Yot nung nai krasae than (A drop of water
in the stream) (Bangkok: Ming mit, 1996).
89 About Thammabucha Bookshop, see Chapter II, p. 129.
278
though Marxism was banned by the military dictatorship, they read whatever books
were available to them90. They found inspiring ideas in the works of the “new left” and
the student movement in Europe91, as well as in the life of Komon Khimthong92.
Komon dedicated his life to serving society by becoming a teacher in a rural area rather
than choosing an elite career, even though he graduated from Chulalongkorn University,
the most elite university in Thailand .
For the students during their period of exploration (yuk sawaeng ha)94, the role
of Buddhist intellectuals was significant. Buddhadasa gave them an insight into life,
which did not arise from their success in elite high schools and universities, and he also
showed them the significance of training their minds in order to develop their social
engagement. For the intellectual inquiry of these students, Sulak Sivaraksa contributed a
lot in terms of preparing opportunities for them to acquire and to exchange knowledge
outside school. When the public sphere became enlivened again under the military
dictatorship, Buddhist intellectuals were developing a new role, which was largely
unknown in the conventional Buddhism that had been maintained in temple activities,
such as rituals, scriptural studies, and meditation. However, the development of this role
of Buddhism stopped after the 14 October 1973 uprising with the return of Marxism in
the public sphere and the radicalising political conflict.

Buddhadasa’s disciples and the experience of communism

The rapidly changing intellectual currents after 14 October 1973 greatly
affected students’ and activists’ view on Buddhism. The more they were attached to the
Marxist tenets of the Communist Party, the more the differences between Marxism and
Buddhism became sharply contrasted. Buddhism was either ignored or abandoned, even

90 Kanya Lilalai, interview.

91 Kanya Lilalai, interview with author, Bangkok, 18 December 1999.
92 Pracha Hutanuwat, interview; Weng Tochirakan, interview, 31 August 1999; Rudi Roengchai, Yot
nung nai krasae tan, p. 104.
93 Pracha, who received the highest marks in his university entrance exam among those who applied
for the social science and humanities, chose to study in the Faculty of Education at Chulalongkorn
University in order to follow the path of Komon (Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae tan, p. 104).
Even after Komon’s tragic murder, his aim and path has been respected by his junior student activists,
and Sulak founded the Komon Khimthong Foundation for publishing books and organising public
lectures that shared the same purpose (Sulak Sivaraksa, Loyalty demands dissent, pp. 116 - 118).
94 My impression is that this Thai phrase is used for young people in the late 1960s in the period
before student activism, and so prior to the strong influence of Marxism. Marxism was banned at

279
though it had developed a social dimension during the period of Marxism’s absence

from the public sphere.

After the 14 October event, Sulak, who was rumoured to be connected with the

CIA, was abandoned by student activists, and the Parithat Sewana did not meet again. A

participant in the Parithat Sewana, Seksan Prasoetkun, suddenly became a hero of the

people who had won the dramatic victory over the military dictators. Students who used

to attend the Parithat Sewana, including Seksan Prasoetkun, Charan Ditthanphichai,

Pridi Bunsu, and even Weng, the devoted Buddhadasa follower, began meeting outside

the Parithat Sewana and were involved deeper in reading Marxist literature. Weng felt

that he could not express his faith in Buddhism, because his friends called him

sarcastically mae thap tham (commander of the dhamma)95. When the assassinations of

students by the authorities and by rightist organisations escalated, all these students

were forced into the jungle for the communist struggle96.

While the Yaowachon Sayam did not disappear after the 14 October event, its

character changed. Buddhism was either abandoned or ignored when the influence of

the Communist Party rapidly penetrated its membership, and members became

connected to the CPT youth network. Early in 1973, even before the 14 October
uprising, Pracha was convinced that Marxism had a better approach to social change
than Buddhism, and he became a member of the Communist Youth League (Sannibat

yaowachon khommiunit haeng prathet thai; Thai abbr.: So. Yo. Tho.), which was under

the guidance of the Communist Party of Thailand . The strong intellectual trend of

Marxism also overwhelmed Kanya’s faith in Buddhism, and she chose to be a Maoist,

abandoning Buddhism. She also became involved in the CPT as a full party member,

and worked for the Voice of the People of Thailand radio station of the CPT located in

Yunnan, which was an intellectual centre of the CPT .

It was not because of the religious policy of the CPT that these student

that time, they were working for a way to improve the world but they had not yet found an answer.
93 Weng, interview, 31 August 1999.
96 Weng Tochirakan, interview, 23 December 1998 and 31 August 1999.
97 Pracha was already a member of the League before the 14 October uprising. During that, Pracha
and his cell members were able to escape to a province because they had information from the Party
in advance.
98 Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae than, p. 147.
280
followers of Buddhadasa abandoned Buddhism in the face of Marxism and the CPT99. It

was rather an ideological defect of Buddhism that these students had perceived.

Compared with the materialist theory and the actual operation of the communist

revolution, Buddhism looked very idealistic and thus ineffectual for social change. Even

if religion could help people, these students considered that religion could only help

individuals, but had no answer to social problems100. Furthermore, Kanya felt that she

had to abandon Buddhism when she decided to join the armed struggle of the CPT,

because the act of killing contradicts Buddhist precepts. She wrote, “If I do not abandon

religion, I cannot become a new person for communism. Thus, I chose to be a person

who does not have religion ... I offered myself as a soldier”101.

In the powerful trend of Marxism or the Communist movement after the 14

October uprising, less mature, younger students were willing to accept the formulae of

Mao Tse-tung102. In the radicalising ideological conflicts between liberalism and

communism, as well as even within the communist camp where they accused each other

of being “revisionist”, the easiest and most effective strategy in political debate was to

adopt the CPT’s ideological line as their own opinion. The ready-made set of ideas that

99 The CPT did not demand that its followers abandon religion as a prerequisite of its membership.
In fact, the CPT was tolerant of its members’ faith in Buddhism to a certain extent (Phirun
Chatrawanitchakun, interview, Bangkok, 1 September 1999; Chonthira Satyawatthana, interview,
Bangkok, 25 August 1999; Prawut Simanta, interview, 16 August 1999, etc). Although the
intellectual members were criticised for participating in superstitious rituals to protect themselves
from the fear of phi or evil spirits, members were not criticised for having an interest in Buddhist
philosophy and for respecting “good monks” such as Phra Phimolatham and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
(Phirun, interview.) There were even some CPT leaders who admitted the significance of religion
such as Pluang Wannasi (1922 - 1996) and Prasit Thiansiri. Pluang was a former MP from Surin
Province and a central committee member of the CPT, and was also known for his poems. He
respected Buddhadasa and Phra Thammapidok (Prayut Payutto) until he died in China (Khana
kammakan chat ngan ramluk pluang wannasi (The committee for the memory of Pluang Wannasi)
(ed.), Prawat phon gnan lae kham ramluk pluang wannasi: kwi, nak khit, nak khian, nak su (The
history of works and memories of Pluang Wannasi: poet, thinker, writer, and fighter) (Bangkok:
Khana kammakan chat ngan ramluk pluang wannasi, 1997), p. 20). Prasit was the leader of the CPT
in the southern provinces, which had been the most powerful and self-supportive army of the CPT
that did not require assistance from China and foreign countries. When he was confronted by and
disappointed with the dominant Chinese Party’s policy, and sent on to the northern bases, he was
reading the Tripitaka in the jungle (Seksan Prasoetkun, interview, Bangkok, 31 August 1999). Seksan
was together with Prasit in the jungle in the north for six months. Prasit had been in jail for the Peace
Committee case during 1952 - 1957, and practised vipassanä meditation and studied the
Abhidhamma with Phra Phimolatham (Suphat Sukhonthaphirom, “Raluk thung kulap saipradit”
(The memory of Kulap Saipradit), Suphot Dantrakun (ed.), Ramluk thung kulap saipradit, p. 10). In
the CPT, it was just that no one called him/herself a phutthasasanikachon or a Buddhist (Phirun,
interview).
100 Pracha, interview; Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae than, p. 147.
101 Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae than, p. 170.

281
the CPT certified spread without being critically examined. In this context, students
paid little attention to religion, which Karl Marx named “the opium of the people”.
They considered religion as “opium” or ineffectual idealism, in this they included the
most rational school of Buddhism. These students did not even notice that Buddhadasa
placed emphasis on Dhammic Socialism during the time of their student movement in
the 1970s103. The tendency to conform to the CPT’s Maoist ideology and ignore
religious value had overwhelmed the Thai students by the time of the 6 October coup in
1976.
The armed conflicts escalated particularly after the Communist victory in
Indochinese countries in April 1975 and the abolition of the Lao monarchy in December
1975. These events increased the level of fear among conservatives including the royal
family, army, civilian bureaucracy, and local businessmen. Especially after 1975, the
rightist mass organisations also grew rapidly for the purpose of countering communism
and adherence to the nationalist symbols: nation, religion, and king104. After all the
assassinations of and assaults on the leading activists, the radicalised rightist mass
organisations, such as Red Gaurs, Village Scouts, and Naowaphon, massacred students
at Thammasat University on 6 October 1976, and the military overthrew civilian
government and parliamentary politics. In order to take refuge from the reactionary
violence, students had to break away from the urban mainstream and join the CPT’s
armed struggle in the jungle.

Buddhism’s role for social change as an alternative to communist struggle

Although during the 1970s Buddhism was considered useless by radical

student activists, and was utilised by the rightist mass organisations as a symbolic
fortress against the communist invasion, Buddhism did not just serve as anti-communist
propaganda. As Buddhadasa and Sulak had attempted in the 1960s, Buddhism had the
possibility to be developed as a critical discourse against existing social injustice. Even
though most students rushed to the CPT’s Marxist tenets, there was a small group of

102
Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae than, pp. 143 - 144, 148.
103
Weng, interview, 23 December 1998; Anut Aphaphirom, interview, Bangkok, 17 August 1999.
104
Bowie, Rituals o f national loyalty, pp. 19 - 33.
282
students who preferred Buddhism as a basis for their social actions rather than the
armed struggles led by the CPT.
This group is called klum ahingsa {ahimsa group, or non-violent group) or
klum sand withi (group of the peaceful method). These students found that the Buddhist
concept of ahimsa, or non-violence, was more significant than any goal to be achieved
by violence, killing, and revolution. They were a group of Buddhist students in the
Yaowachon Sayam who organised themselves as the Ahimsa Group in 1974 in
opposition to the current of students devoting themselves to the CPT’s revolutionary
movement. The students in the Ahimsa Group included Wisit Wongwinyu105, Santisuk
Sophonsiri106, Phaisan Wongwarawisit10 (who later ordained and took the name, Phra
Phaisan Wisalo), and Pracha Hutanuwat (also known by his ordained name Phra Pracha
Pasannathammo while he was a monk during 1975 - 1986) after his withdrawal from
the CPT’s youth organisation. They have remained under Sulak Sivaraksa’s advisement,
and developed their ahimsa movement further into the ‘socially engaged Buddhist’
movement.
The Ahimsa Group centred their activities on publishing the journal,
Pacharayasan, which means “The teacher of the teacher”. Pacharayasan first came to
exist in 1971 under the editorship of Phiphop Thongchai while he was a student in the
Prasanmit School of Sinakharinwirot University. At that time, Thanom’s military
dictatorship banned the publishing of new journals so that people used the name of an
existing journal that had already been registered. When Phiphop started Pacharayasan,
it was officially a special edition of a journal of the Prasanmit School alumni association,
Kansuksa (Education), and the full name of the journal was Kansuksa chabap
pacharayasan (Education: Pacharayasan edition). Under Phiphop’s editorial board,
Pacharayasan was a journal specialising in alternative education, and introduced
Summer Hill’s style of education. When Phiphop graduated from university in 1974,
Sulak gave the Ahimsa Group an opportunity to work for the editorial board of

105 Wisit was the practical editor of Pacharayasan in the second half of 1974. The nominal editor
(bannathikan) of the journal was Sulak Sivaraksa for official purposes. Wisit was officially in the
position of sub-editor (phu chuai saraniyakon) to the main editor, Phiphop Thongchai, but it was
Wisit who was in charge of presenting the volumes in line with the principle of ahimsa.
106 Santisuk was the editor (saraniyakon) in 1975.
10' Phaisan was the editor (saraniyakon) in 1975 - 1977.
283
Pacharayasan. It was after the 14 October, and the political oppression of the military
dictatorship had been abolished so that the succeeding editorial board of Pacharayasan
was officially registered as a new journal, and it changed its editorial line to ahimsa108.
As the editorial board of Pacharayasan, the Ahimsa Group propagated the
philosophy of non-violence. Because all these students were competent in English, they
were able to seek alternative views of Marxism in foreign countries through English
materials. In the journal they promoted and translated the works of leaders of
non-violence movements such as Gandhi109, and Thich Nhat Hanh of Vietnam110.
While Gandhi’s works had already become well-known in Thailand since 1938,
the Ahimsa Group contributed and attracted their contemporary and younger student
activists through introducing and translating the works of Thich Nhat Hanh, a
Vietnamese Zen monk who fought against the Vietnam War using non-violent resistance.
One of the most famous works of Thich Nhat Hanh, Miracle of being awake, which was
first translated into Thai by Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, the then ordained Pracha
Hutanuwat, has gained lasting popularity since it was first published as a pocketbook in
1976, and by 1995 had been reprinted ten times111. The way of political activism
exemplified by Thich Nhat Hanh was strength of mind cultivated by Buddhist
meditation practice instead of physical violence. This was unique in late 1970s Thailand
both in circles of radicalised student activism, and of Buddhism, which most often
taught people to seclude themselves to achieve their individual salvation, and was
criticised from a Marxist perspective as useless idealism. In this light, Buddhism was no
longer necessarily a conservative national ideology against materialist communism, but
was instead given the role of criticism against any violence for any political purpose of

108 Phiphop Thongchai, interview, Bangkok, 24 August 1999.

109 Gandhi’s life and work was known in Thailand at least since 1938 from Sawami Satthayanantha
Buri’s (Swami Satyananda Puri’s), Mahatama khanthi: phu patthiwat India (Mahatma Gandhi: an
India’s revolutionary) (Bangkok: Dharmashrama, 1938). Gandhi became more popular among recent
generations through the translations of Karuna and Ruan’urai Kusalasai, the Thai scholars on Indian
literature in Hindi and Sanskrit. Pacharayasan also propagated the ideas and activities of Gandhi
and his followers from the second half of the 1970s onwards.
110 Pracha Hutanuwat, interview. Thich Nhat Hanh’s thought and approach became very influential
among Thai student activists through the works of the Ahimsa Group in Pacharayasan. About Thich
Nhat Hanh, see Sallie B. King, “Thich Nhat Hanh and the United Buddhist Church: nondualism in
action”, Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King (eds.), Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist liberation
movements in Asia (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 321 - 363.
111 Thit Nat Han (Thich Nhat Hanh), Patihan haeng kan tun yu samoe (Miracle of being awake)
(translated by Phra Pracha Pasannathammo) (Bangkok: Mulanithi Komon Khimthong, 1995).
284
either the right or the left.
The role of the Buddhist activists became significant especially in the absence
of the radicalised students who khao pa or joined in the jungle struggles of the
Communist Party after the 6 October Coup in 1976. The Ahimsa Group actualised their
philosophy of non-violence in the face of the reactionary coup on 6 October. The
expanded network of the Ahimsa Group, which was named the Co-ordinating Group of
Religion for Society, or CGRS, undertook the human rights campaign to release the
political prisoners of the coup turmoil. The members of the Ahimsa Group wrote open
letters, visited those political prisoners, and made reports for international organisations
such as Amnesty International in order to pressure the Thai government to ensure fair
trials and prompt release. One of the leaders of the CGRS, Phaisan Wongwarawisit,
currently ordained as Phra Phaisan Wisalo, estimated that the activities of the CGRS
were meaningful both as symbolic action and as direct action to demand the government
and the public to release 600 political prisoners112. This action of the Ahimsa Group,
based on Buddhist philosophy instead of Marxism, was an alternative way of struggling
with political and social injustice.
Although Sulak has been a respected advisor and a mentor of the Ahimsa
Group, initiatives in these philosophical pursuits and political actions were taken by the
young activists rather than by Sulak. The activists in the Ahimsa Group used Sulak’s
connections with international organisations during Sulak’s absence, he had been
invited to the United States at the time of the 6 October coup and did not return to
Thailand until the situation eased under the Kriangsak regime in the late 1970s. The
Ahimsa Group appreciated Sulak for identifying the potential of young students and
finding opportunities for them113, but at the same time, the inspiration from the Ahimsa
Group seemed to be essential to the further development of Sulak’s ideological and
organising activism as an engaged Buddhist.

Activists’ return to Buddhism

On the other hand, activists who were involved with the Communist Party of

112 The announcement of the CGRS establishment is in “Thalaengkan” (Announcement),

Pacharayasan, Vol. 5 No. 17 (March - April 1976); Pracha, interview; Phra Phaisan Wisalo,
interview, Bangkok, 25 August 1999.

285
Thailand, when their commitment to the Party became deeper, faced problems with its
inflexible adherence to ideology. When the reality of the Communist Party disappointed
them, some activists, including those who once abandoned Buddhism for dogmatic
loyalty to communism, revisited Buddhism to seek more relevant ideas and another
approach to society.
Pracha Hutanuwat (1952 - ), wrho had been one of the founders of the
Yaowachon Sayam, in 1973 abandoned Buddhism and became a member of a youth
organisation of the CPT. He then returned to Buddhism and was involved with the
Ahimsa Group shortly before the 6 October 1976 military coup. Pracha’s withdrawal
from the CPT was much earlier than most students who only left the jungle struggle
from 1980 onwards. Pracha was disappointed with the CPT’s project of revolution
because of its corrupt administration, its rigid, intolerant ideological adherence to the
line of the Chinese Communist Party, and the lack of spiritual value in the movement114.
By experiencing Marxism’s criticism of religion, w'here it was regarded as an
individual comfort and impractical idealism, Pracha discovered another dimension of
Buddhist insight and meditation that actually contributed significantly to social activism.
He criticised the “good” Buddhist practices as egotistical. For example, a hospital,
whose Buddhist club of doctors and nurses were known for their eager participation in
meditation practices and devotion to their monk teachers, actually gave unequal medical
treatment to the rich and the poor. Pracha insisted that their religious practices should
not be satisfied in seclusion for their individual achievement, but rather should generate
right view that could distinguish good from evil in society to make the world better by
their conduct115. Pracha argued that the latter type of meditation practice would help
activists to challenge the social evils even being at odds with the mainstream view. The
paniiä or insight, which can arise from meditation practice, would distinguish what was
just without conforming to the world of “materialism” that suppresses humanity116.
When Pracha withdrew from the Communist Youth League, he ordained as a

113 Pracha Hutanuwat, interview.

114 Pracha, interviw.
115 Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, Phawana kap kan-rap-chai sangkhom (Meditation practice and
serving society) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1981), pp. 5 - 9 .
116 Phra Pracha, Phawana kap kan-rap-chai sangkhom, pp. 42 - 45.
286
Buddhist monk117. Among the members of the Ahimsa Group, Pracha became the
closest disciple of Buddhadasa, with whom he stayed at Suan Mokkh for six years, 1980
- 1986. As a capable disciple of Buddhadasa’s later years, Pracha did a thorough
interview with Buddhadasa about his life and thought. His interview was published as a
series of books entitled Lao wai mua wai sonthaya: atchiwaprawat khong than
phutthathat (Talking in the twilight years: an autobiography of Ven. Buddhadasa). It is
not only useful for Buddhadasa’s personal history and thought, but also for the
contemporary history of Thai Buddhism which he learnt from and participated in as a
significant contributor.
After his experience with Marxism, Pracha summarised his view on
Buddhadasa’s contribution to Thai people and society. He said that Buddhadasa pointed
out the deepest roots of the Thai people and of human beings, or the pumipanya of their
own civilisation118. Pracha emphasised that what prevents individuals from realising
sammäditthi or “right view” to distinguish the real cause of remediable social problems is
watthuniyom or the “materialism” of both capitalist consumerism and Marxist tenets,
both give more weight to the material to the rather than the spiritual119. For Pracha, the
synthesis of the conflict between the right and left was Buddhism: the essence of
Buddhist dhamma that Buddhadasa presented, but it is distinguished from superficial
ritual or superstitious beliefs. Pracha published his views, learnt from Buddhadasa, in
Pacharayasan. His articles became popular among younger student activists, who came
along after the Communist Party was in decline, they supported the non-violent
approach that respects humanity the most.
On the other hand, Kanya, as a woman, had a different experience when she
withdrew from the Communist Party of Thailand. Kanya, who worked for the Party’s
radio broadcasting in Yunnan as a full member, had to face the reality of the CPT in
many ways. She witnessed among the CPT’s executives, financial corruption, the
Chinese faction’s dominance, and the rigid ideological adherence to the Chinese

117 Pracha’s ordained name was Phra Pracha Pasannathammo. Pracha remained a monk for eleven
years, and disrobed in 1986 (Pracha, interview).
118 Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, “Than phutthathat kap kan-patiwat watthanatham” (Ven.
Buddhadasa and revolution in culture) in Phutthathat kap khon run mai , p. 154.
119 Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, “Than phutthathat kap kan-patiwat watthanatham”, pp. 148, 154,
160 - 170.
287
Communist Party, which deserted the CPT for its own national interest in a new period
of international relations.
China, which had both ideologically and materially supported the CPT’s
activities from its beginning, adopted a pragmatic policy in the new international
situation, which in effect left its subsidiary stranded. After Vietnam’s invasion of
Cambodia in December 1978, in February 1979 China invaded Vietnam in retaliation.
Due to this dispute, the CPT, which was allied with China rather than Vietnam, lost their
vital supply routes and campsites in Laos, which was allied with Vietnam. This political
change made it very difficult for the CPT guerrillas to survive and struggle in the north
and northeastern jungles of Thailand. Furthermore, China sought co-operation with the
Thai government to assist the Khmer Rouge on the Thai border to help block the
Vietnamese advance in its southern region. China, which was co-operating with the
Thai military, abruptly closed the CPT’s radio station in Yunnan in July 1979. The
students became critical of the CPT’s old guard who were still loyal to China, which
had abandoned the Thai communist movement for its own national interests .
In May 1981 Kanya finally broke away from the Party, to which she had
devoted herself for the higher purpose of creating a better society at the cost of her own
relationships. She had to question whether or not the deaths of Thai people, including
her close friends and students whom she had introduced to the party, were in fact only a
political contribution for China. She had to re-examine the value of ahimsa in
Buddhism, which she had abandoned when she entered the jungle for revolutionary
struggle.
However, contrary to the male Buddhist activists in the Ahimsa Group, some
of whom had a path to become ordained as a monk, ordination was not a choice for a
woman to return from radicalism. Compared with monks, people do not gain as much
merit from giving to women ascetics, who are usually called mae chi in Thailand,
therefore it is more difficult for mae chi to support full-time religious practice. Kanya
gave up the idea of renouncing the world to be an ascetic, and even rejected being
involved in any group or organisation. She got married to become a housewife

120 Gawin Chutima, The rise and fall of the Communist Party o f Thailand (1973 - 1987), University
of Kent at Canterbury, Centre of South-East Asian Studies, Occasional Paper No. 12 (1990), pp. 37 -
41; Pasuk and Baker, Thailand..., pp. 311 -3 1 2 .
288
anarchist121.
Kanya felt that her faith in Marxism, which used to dominate her, was
inappropriate and invalid so that she needed to sort out what she was able to believe.
She read any books that might have an answer. Those books included the forty-five
volumes of the Tipitaka and books on almost every school of Buddhism from magic to
sermons of famous monks and women teachers. Kanya learnt idappaccayatä or
conditional arising as a Buddhist way of looking at things. Everything, whether it is in
the mind or in the material world, takes place because of a sequence of causes. She
thought that it was more important to look at this inter-related causation of events rather
than insisting on either mind or matter as dependent on the other. If the mind is defiled
by egoism, reality cannot be seen. When she had presented herself as a Marxist or
Maoist, neither of these belief system was in fact her own view, but she put forward
those ideas in order to win ideological debates. As a result, she could not take
responsibility for what she had said and what she had done. Those younger students she
introduced to the Party’s youth organisation had to lose their lives in the revolutionary
war. Through the lessons of the CPT, she decided to have three principles for herself:
not to tell a lie; not to do violence to other beings; and to do whatever was useful for
herself and others122. When she found herself following the Buddhist principles as her
own opinion, she thought she was no longer a person without religion. She had returned
to being a Buddhist123.
In the process of returning to Buddhism, Kanya realised that Buddhadasa was
again significant for her. Although for a long time she avoided reading Buddhadasa’s
works in order not to believe in his thought, it was Buddhadasa who explained the
meaning of the scriptural text the best. Among the many schools of Buddhism in
Thailand that she explored by her broad reading, Buddhadasa’s insightful words reached
her the most profoundly124.
Just like Kanya, a number of intellectuals and students who returned from the
communist insurgency in the jungle turned to Buddhism and Buddhadasa’s teachings in

121 Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae tan, p. 282.

122 Kanya, interview.
123 Rudi Roengchai, Yot nung nai krasae tan, pp. 288 - 289.
124 Kanya, interview.
289
order to seek the meaning of their experience and their life125. Anut Aphaphirom, a CPT
intellectual writer whose articles had a great impact on students’ decision to be involved
in the communist struggle in the 1970s, changed his attitude toward Buddhism after he
left the Party in 1981. Although Anut did not find significance in religion when he
wrote his articles for the revolutionary movement, he started studying Buddhism after
his return from China. Anut had to find an answer to his question, “Why was Marxism
unsuccessful?” (Thammai latthi mak lomleo?) Anut did not believe that it was because
capitalism was superior to socialism. Buddhism or religion should have significant
points which were lacking in Marxism. When he sought an answer to this question, two
monk teachers were helpful to him. Buddhadasa pointed out the essence of Buddhism,
while P. A. Payuttho Bhikkhu defined Buddhist concepts in a manual126. Anut realised
that the prophecy of Marxism, whose plan was to radically achieve an ideal society,
could not be actualised, but a real change can be brought by individuals who attained
right view and used it to benefit society, as Buddhadasa had been teaching. Even if
socialist states won the revolutionary struggle, they had a lot of corruption because of
dictatorial structures and the kilesa of each individual that could not be abolished by the
revolution. Anut agrees with the problem as proposed by Buddhism.
Weng, who was once a Buddhist advocate in the Paiithat Sewana but took part
in the communist struggle by concealing his Buddhist element as merely individual
sentiment, also became critical of the Communist Party after his serious involvement
with it. He severely criticised the leaders of socialist countries who were dominated by
kilesa (defilements) and avijjä (ignorance) even though those leaders succeeded in
building up the socialist system127. Only after his return from the jungle in 1982 did
Weng learn that Buddhadasa had been insisting on socialism with the dhamma. Weng

125 Apart from Buddhadasa, several other schools of Buddhism fulfilled the internal demands of
former communists. According to some of the former CPT members, such as Charan Ditthanphichai
and Phirun Chatrawanitchakun, there were many former party comrades and villagers in the
Buddhist communities of Santi Asoke, which resemble the ideal of communism (Charan
Ditthanphichai, interview, 21 August 1999; Phirun Chatrawanitchakun, interview, 1 September
1999). Suthep Lakkhanawichian, one of the most influential underground mobilisers of university
and high school students throughout the 1970s, became ordained in 1988 as a monk, Phra Suthep
Chinawaro. Suthep followed a meditation teacher, Luang Pho Thian (Phra Suthep Chinawalo,
interview, 26 August 1999).
126 Anut Aphaphirom, interview, 17 August 1999.
127 For example, Weng cited that Stalin killed his political enemies through his dosa (anger) and
moha (ignorance), and Mao Tse-tung killed people for the sake of his Cultural Revolution, and

290
agrees that socialism has to be Dhammic Socialism, which has the dhamma. However,
Dhammic Socialism seems to be underdeveloped in Weng’s later intellectual and
political activities. Although Weng still respects Buddhadasa as his highest teacher, he
does not think that Buddhism was the ideological principle behind his own leadership of
the Black May demonstration128.
Those who took over the idea of Dhammic Socialism were those who were
involved in the Ahimsa Group, or who were claiming themselves to be ‘socially
engaged Buddhists’. They developed their Buddhist perspectives on society in NGO
activities after the 1980s.

Applying Dhammic Socialism to NGO-led community development

Even in the 1980s when those student activists left the Communist Party with
disappointment, the social problems that they attempted to solve using Marxism
remained and had even worsened. Because of the economic boom through the shift of
economic orientation from agricultural products to manufacturing and service industries,
the rural population moved to become urban labour, and the gap between the urban
commercially wealthy and the rural poor widened. It was also a spreading of
“materialism” or consumerism all over the country.
With the expulsion and declining role of the Marxist critique in the public
sphere after 6 October 1976, Buddhism and Buddhist intellectuals developed social
analysis and involvement. In the sphere of university activities, the Buddhist club was
one of the three student club activities allowed by the authorities, along with the Young
Rotary Club and the Thai music club. Among these choices, not only religiously
devoted students but also those students who were interested in social engagement
chose to join the Buddhist club . In the social section of the Buddhist club , the

acquired many pretty women as his ‘wives’ (Weng, interview, 23 December 1998).
128 Weng, interview, 31 August 1999.
129 Phra Dutsadi Methangkuro, interview, 6 March 1999. Dutsadi entered Thammasat University in
1977, and became the president of the Buddhist club in his third year. Throughout and after his
activities in the Buddhist club, Dutsadi closely worked with Sulak Sivaraksa and the Buddhist
activists who sought Sulak’s advice. After graduating from university and working for NGOs for
four years, Dutsadi was ordained as a monk in 1985, and stayed at Suan Mokkh for eight years, 1987
- 1995.
130 In Thammasat University the Buddhist club differentiated into three sub groups: the group
undertaking the traditional Buddhist ceremonies; the meditation group; and the social work group.
The members of the social works group organised a camp to help develop rural communities and
291
influence of Sulak Sivaraksa and the Ahirnsa Group was expanding. They advocated
community development based on religious values, and it became appealing to student
activists. Sulak developed this idea through contact with progressive Christian groups
which signified inter-religious dialogue and community development. Sulak sought a
way to apply it to Thai Buddhism, especially in his networking of so-called phra nak
phatthana or development monks, who had already been voluntarily assisting villagers’
economic life with their religious guidance. Having some relationship with Sulak, Dr.
Prawase Wasi (1931 - ), another well-known lay follower of Buddhadasa, developed
his role as a Buddhist social critic and an organiser of rural community development,
especially in the area of medical care. In this situation of the expanding roles of
Buddhist intellectuals in social work from the 1980s onward, Buddhadasa’s Dhammic
Socialism was reconsidered and a way of practical use was sought through dialogue
with Marxism.
During the 1980s and 1990s the leadership of social activism in Thailand
shifted from the Communist Party and Marxism to the Buddhist group of Sulak. The
Communist Party of Thailand was in decline after the early 1980s, and the student
activists who went into the CPT’s armed struggles in the jungle returned to the city. The
fall of Marxism’s prestige was accelerated by the dissolution of the communist regimes
in Europe in the late 1980s. People realised that the radical change of society through
armed struggle for total revolution was not as romantic as in the Marxist theories.
Sulak and the Ahirnsa Group, which expanded its scope of activities to rural
development, recently have begun to call themselves “engaged Buddhists” in order to
cover the wider range of social activism that they are involved in from a Buddhist
perspective. Aside from promoting the idea and performing actions of non-violence,

urban slum areas. They had contact with Sulak and some NGO activities as well (Phra Dutsadi
Methangkuro, interview).
131 Compared with Sulak, who basically does not have any position in academia, Prawase belongs to
more elite circles. Prawase studied in the United States and in England on the Royal Scholarship,
and became an expert on haematology. He has had important positions in Sirirat Hospital, Mahidol
University, and the Doctors Council. When Prawase started reading Sulak’s journal, Sangkhomsat
parithat, and was involved in an extensive research on thalassemia (a blood diseasse) in rural areas
in the 1960s, he began to pay attention to the villagers’ diseases and poverty. Around the same time,
Prawase became interested in Buddhism through the influence of Dr. Uai Ketsing at Sirirat Hospital.
However, Prawase preferred Buddhadasa’s sermons to the forest monks whom Uai respected. For
Prawase’s biography, see Prawet Wasi, Bon sen thang chiwit (On the road of life) (Bangkok: Mo
chaoban), Vol. 1 - 7 .
292
they have started organising a network of local monk-led rural development movements,
w'hich spontaneously arose around the same time of the mid-1980s. Among many others
that belong to Sulak’s group, two networks are important. One is the Thai
Inter-Religious Commission for Development (or in Thai, Khana kammakan sasana
phua kanphatthano) established in 1980, which is a network of lay Buddhist and
intellectuals from other religions who support development. The other is the
Sekhiyatham, which was founded in 1991 to make contact between monks and mae chi
who work for development. As activities of these networks, the lay engaged Buddhists
hold seminars, organise study trips, publish and distribute the seminars’ proceedings in
order to share successful experience with monks and villagers in other villages132.
Those local monks who are now organised into the Sekhiyatham are called
phra nak phatthana (development monks) and have provided leadership for the better
livelihood of villagers in their own local community133. These monks have witnessed
the changes of the rural economy in their villages in the last forty years. According to a
phra nak phatthana from Yasothon Province, Phra Khru Suphacharawat, his village
started to change in 1961 when the government introduced jute and other commercial
crop cultivation for export. In the early 1970s, the government promoted high
productivity rice as well as chemical fertiliser and agricultural chemicals, which
severely damaged the soil and water. By practising agriculture for sale, all they got was
debt from the bank, and their sales account was not even enough for them to buy food.
Phra Khru Suphacharawat has challenged this current of capitalism and consumerism in
the village since 1981 by promoting the villagers’ self-reliance. For the purpose of
self-reliance, he introduced a village co-operative in which villagers make a small
deposit and borrow money from the community funding pool134. This community
banking system has been promoted both by the government programme and by NGOs.
In such a small scale banking system with little power of enforcement, each member’s

132 Waraphong Wetchamalinon, a secretary at the Thai Inter-Religious Commission for

Development, interview, Bangkok, 23 August 1999.
1j3 About development monks, see Seri Phongphit, Religion in a changing society: Buddhism,
reform and the role o f monks in community development in Thailand (Hong Kong: Arena Press,
1988).
lj4 Phra Khru Suphacharawat, interview, Yasothon, 25 December 1999; Prida Ruangwichithon,
Phlik fun khun chiwit: chiwit lae ngan khong phra khru suphacharawat (Restoring life: life and
work of Phra Khru Suphacharawat) (Bangkok: Khana kammakan sasana phua kanphatthana, 1992).
293
morality and respect for the rules was essential for its sustainability. In it, the spirit of
religion contributes significantly.
In the case of Phra Khru Suphacharawat, his unique idea for the villagers’
self-reliance that revived traditional herbal medicines was shared with other village
monks and leaders through the network of NGOs and Sekhiyatham seminars. Through
those seminars, he also learnt from the experiments of other villages the methods of
integrated agriculture (kasetthakam phasom phasan) that primarily produces everything
the villagers eat, such as their own rice, vegetables, fruits, fish, chickens, and ducks,
instead of produce for sale. Aside from such technical aspects, the engaged Buddhists or
urban educated NGO workers positively contributed to the self-respect and confidence
of villagers.
Phra Khru Suphacharawat proposed an ideal of a harmonious village
community as thammika chumchon, or “dhammic community”, an idea he gained from
Buddhadasa’s “Dhammic Socialism”. In the work for a dhammic community, villagers
no longer feel ashamed of their living conditions compared with those of the urban elite.
The concept of dhammic community stands for both an empowerment and validation of
the villagers’ own way of living and wisdom, by which social reform would be achieved
concretely on a small scale.
Aside from practical coordination of community development, engaged
Buddhists are attempting to develop Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism as an
ideological basis of their social movement. On the one hand, Buddhadasa’s Dhammic
Socialism is critically examined. For instance, Prawase acquired some points from
Marxist critiques, and examined the social problems as those of the social structure
rather than those of individuals. Prawase does not believe that people became poor
because they are lazy, or because they have indulged in vice as Buddhadasa stated135.
Prawase looks at the structural causes of social crisis, such as the problems of the
centralised system, the unfair economic system, the structure of hidden violence, and
the lack of balance in society . Also, Prawase even modified the concepts of Dhammic
Socialism, and calls it “Dhammic Society” (Thammika sangkhom), because he

135 Prawase Wasi, interview, Bangkok, 29 April 1999.

lj6 Prawet Wasi (Prawase Wasi), Thammika sangkhom (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong,
1995), p. 3 4 - 5 9 .
294
considered “socialism” as outdated, and the term socialism has a narrower connotation
than society137. He said that “Dhammic Society” could avoid being misread and better
promotes the relevance of Dhammic Socialism in today’s society .
Many engaged Buddhists agree with the value of Dhammic Socialism, which
provides an important spiritual value complementing contemporary society and
economics, which is missing in the Marxist project of a new society. What they consider
significant is, first of all, the presence of the dhamma in society. They agreed that the
four meanings of the dhamma: nature itself, the laws of the nature, duty in accordance
with the laws of nature, and the fruit from duty in accordance with the laws of nature,
are valid in the case of society as well as for the human mind and human life. An
anonymous writer considers that Dhammic Socialism provides a view on the
relationship between human beings and nature, which coincides with the Green
Movement in Europe, which has come to replace the Marxist critique . Second,
engaged Buddhists agree with Buddhadasa’s critique of watthuniyom, or materialism in
terms of consumerism, which should be replaced by morality. Phra Phaisan Wisalo
states that Dhammic Socialism can provide Western socialism, which aims at social
justice and equality by emphasising material prosperity, with a higher spiritual attitude
that is never attached to the world140. The morality of Dhammic Socialism can free
people from the problems of contemporary society, such as materialistic worldview,
money worship, and purposeless, disciplineless freedom141.
Some engaged Buddhists are attempting to connect their understanding of
Dhammic Socialism to practical reforms. Santikaro Bhikkhu, an American monk who is
one of the most vocal and active disciples of Buddhadasa in contemporary Thailand,
through his fluent Thai sermons advocates the “noble twelve-fold social path” in order
to realise Buddhadasa’s concepts: right religion, right education, right leadership, right
organisation and government, right communication, right culture, right sexuality and

137 Prawet Wasi (Prawase Wasi), Thammika sangkhom, pp. 3 - 4 .

138 Prawase Wasi, interview.
139 “Bot nam: thammika sangkhomniyom si khiao” (Introduction: green Dhammic Socialism),
Pacharayasan, vol. 20 no. 4 (October - December 1993), pp. 7 - 15.
140 Phra Phaisan Wisalo, “Yutthasat thammika sangkhomniyom lae thang ok haeng phuttha-tham”
(The strategy of Dhammic Socialism and an exit [i.e., solution of a problem] at the Buddha
Dhamma), Pacharayasan, Vol. 25 No. 3 (March - June 1999), p. 33.
141 Phra Phaisan Wisalo, “Yutthasat thammika sangkhomniyom...”, p. 35.
295
family, right ecology, right play, right monitoring, and right sangha and solidarity142. An
anonymous writer proposed a reform of land ownership and a progressive taxation
system in order to have a fair distribution of wealth based on the principle of Dhammic
Socialism that encourages individuals not to accumulate more property than necessary,
and not to exploit other human beings or nature143. Phra Phaisan proposes the two ways
of social practice as strategies of Dhammic Socialism: support for nurturing civil
society and reform in Buddhism by reviving the original Buddha Dhamma and by
Sangha reform so that the Sangha administration is not an obstacle to social reform144.
Dhammic Socialism has sought relevance to contemporary society.

In this chapter, I have examined the development of Buddhadasa’s Dhammic

Socialism and the development of Buddhist social engagement based on this concept
from the 1960s to the 1990s. The discussions with Marxism brought into the Thai
Buddhist public sphere nurtured a social perspective in Buddhism. In the face of
Marxism, Buddhism was not simply divided into leftists and rightists, or labelled as an
ideological weapon for the anti-communist campaign. Buddhism acquired its own
critical stance toward contemporary society, a stance that sides with neither the
communists nor the counter-insurgency security forces. Some of those Buddhist
perspectives, such as the method of non-violence and resolution of individual
defilements, were missing in the Marxist project of social transformation. These
perspectives became especially important after the social criticism of Marxism
decreased in strength following the collapse of the socialist regimes of the Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe.
In the 1980s, concerns for social reform were directed at the betterment of life
in small rural communities through the activities of NGOs. When highly educated
activists of urban origins went into villages in the countryside, they found the rural Thai
communities are already “anarchistic”, which means antithetical to both capitalism and
communism145. What kind of “anarchistic” characteristics do rural Thai communities

142 Santikaro Bhikkhu, “The four noble truth of Dhammic Socialism”, Watts, Senauke, and
Santikaro (eds.), Entering the realm of reality, pp. 89 - 161.
143 “Bot nam: thammika sangkhomniyom si khiao”, pp. 12 - 13.
144 Phra Phaisan, “Yutthasat thammika sangkhomniyom”, p.36.
145 Chatthip Nartsupha, “The community culture school of thought”, Manas Chitakasem and
296
have? They are perceived as independent from government control, and distinct from
the principles of capitalist economy146. For example, the villagers’ traditional herbal
medicines and treatment do not require modem medical service from the government,
and their subsistence farming to survive does not seek to multiply profits as in the
capitalist economy. These ideas of Thai villagers are called phumpanya chao ban, or the
local wisdom of villagers. The new role for Buddhist activists is to reinforce the local
wisdom in rural communities, which have actually become involved in the system of
the capitalist economy.
An especially important aspect of Buddhadasa’s philosophy that contributes to
economic oriented development works is his criticism of watthuniyom, which means
material determinism and consumerism. Buddhism, from a perspective that stresses
spiritual values, challenges the capitalist economic system that grows through endless
desire for consumption. In this light, Buddhism can become a counter-ideology to
capitalism. This is also an answer io a question, how can Buddhism become an
alternative system of social thought after the Communist Party and Marxism have
declined147.
Based on these discoveries of social aspects in relation to Marxism, Buddhism
became an important ideological foundation fox NGO-led social engagement. Instead of
the radical revolutionary transformation, “engaged Buddhists” applied the morality and
insight of Buddhism to members of small-scale rural communities in order to improve
their economic life. These works are a practical approach to construct a harmonious
balance of sufficiency in nature, as depicted in Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism. This
was a significant gain for Buddhism in the Thai Buddhist public sphere through its
contact with Marxism. Buddhism, which was discussed in the Buddhist public sphere,
was no longer a religion solely for pious people aiming at otherworldly salvation.
Rather, it indicated people a righteous way of living in the real world here and now.

Andrew Turton (eds.), Thai constructions o f knowledge (London: School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 1991), pp. 118-141.
146 Chatthip Nartsupha, “The community culture school of thought”, p. 133.
147 cf. Phra Pracha Pasannathammo, “Than Phutthathat kap kan-patiwat watthanatham” (Ven.
Buddhadasa and revolution of culture), Phutthathat kap khon run mai: mua khon num sao tham
thung rak khong khwam-pen-thai (Buddhadasa and the new generation: when young men and
women asked of the root of Thainess) (Bangkok: Mulatnithi komon khimthong, 1983), pp. 128-193.
297
 o i J i jj $ sTjt
(SÜ, r il CtV i'w ’W jJvU>J7 AJ Wf.) 6 l&d
^ ', 1

Itvf Qvi arv^eJ (T|£j ^ u fii aoTs]IL^v}

IlodhJb v ^
p \ l r\u v ix 3 a <H(«cVv} f r £ jj [rtoii ^ ■ v j
Uvfo Tu Oitirr\<J fJfjJüu

•m TC"vi-il^oi\} nt >te C4 f t <rnd

9 Öt i TvVt] < 1 IBita K.\i V<50

v l ^ u 'crp d

^ O ijtt^^ Jn s'S u fjjo ry 1d

<^D ~ t <i«\ Ci** ^U(g(j ^/jrjd UV aUj

0\j P ^ c iT fU n tf^ ^ U ^ ;^
vn<Vu4«vj^Y«l r«^n«rKJni

a4n£wv

Figure 5. A poem by Buddhadasa

(“100 pi phutthathat (2449 - 2549)” (A hundred years of Buddhadasa [1906 - 2006]),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 67 No. 2 (May - July 1999), p. 147; A translation by Ito).

Buddhadasa keeps living, is not going to die

He lives in order to serve human beings without ceasing to care for them
With the Propagation o f the Dhamma left, just as it was
Friends, do you see what the death is?
Even though I die, the body fades entirely away
The voice remains in the ears of friends
It used to preach to people, it does not become feeble
As if I do not die, the body of the dhamma remains
What we have been doing together does not die
I remain in order to serve you, the same as before
If something turns up for you to listen to
Think of it as if I stayed here to show you the right way
What we have been doing together does not live or die
Fruit will arise from a fruit in various branches
Until the day we promised to talk to each other, don’t stop
Keep the dhamma in mind to put an end to death
Conclusion: Buddhadasa, the Buddhist public sphere and
twentieth-century Thailand

Human life and the world are both impermanent. In 1993 Buddhadasa passed
away with criticism of modem medical treatment for prolonging life. Towards the end
of his life, Buddhadasa did not have enough strength to go outside Suan Mokkh to
preach, but he recorded his messages on tape to send his thoughts to his friends and to
his audience. He said, “Buddhadasa keeps living, is not going to die / He lives in order
to serve human beings without ceasing to care for them / With the Thammakhot1 left
just as it was / Friends, do you see what the death is?” . After his death, his ashes were
scattered in accordance with his will. Thais believe that the bones of some famous forest
monks have special characteristics which indicate the attainment of arahantship. They
say the bones are crystal clear, like jewels. Some rich lay followers of forest monks
have built museums or commemoration halls at temples in order to exhibit such bones
as evidence of the monk’s becoming an arahant. However, Buddhadasa’s disciples did
not do this because he was against this practice. The remains of Buddhadasa are the
numerous books and tapes in which he has spoken of the dhamma.
In the century in which he lived, from its beginning to its end, the
socio-economic development during the 1960s under military dictatorship created
perhaps the most remarkable changes in Thai society. The apparent achievement of
material prosperity convinced many to accede to the military’s deep involvement in
government. At the same time, the military governments suppressed political activities
and freedom of speech about socio-political issues that might involve criticism about
and threats to the existing order. However, unlike discussions in the political sphere,
which were necessarily confined to non-controversial topics, the Buddhist public sphere
entertained lively discussions that extended beyond ecclesiastical education matters. At
the same time, these Buddhist discussions were sometimes linked to society and politics.
These discussions facilitated roles for Buddhism in secular society as both a support for
government anti-communist propaganda, and as an ideology critical of the current
social and political conditions. Buddhism was no longer a religion confined to
monasteries for the enlightenment of the ordained, but instead served to explain realities

1 Underlined by Buddhadasa; this is the name of the series which collects together Buddhadasa’s
preaching, it literally means “Dhamma propagation”.
" See Figure 5 for the whole poem and the citation details.
299
in the real world. In the 1970s with the radicalising Marxist doctrinal critique of religion
as abstract idealism, Thai Buddhists sought for the relevance of Buddhism to the
contemporary social situation. After the late 1980s, Buddhism developed as a critical
ideology presenting an alternative in the face of the declining credibility of Marxism,
while Thai society continued to expand in a capitalist and consumerist direction.
Throughout the twentieth century, discussions in the Buddhist public sphere have
dialectically responded to the impermanency of social changes.
The discussions Buddhadasa was involved in and his activities traced in this
thesis reveal some features of the Buddhist public sphere in recent Thai history.
In Chapter I, I examined the development of Buddhadasa’s thought as it was
influenced by certain ideas and communications in the Buddhist public sphere. The
reform and spread of ecclesiastical education provided an essential foundation for
expanding participation in it. Enthusiasm for unfamiliar Buddhist doctrines, which had
not been present in conventional Thai Buddhism, was also transmitted through the Thai
Buddhist public sphere by critical lay Buddhist intellectuals in Thailand. International
Buddhist movements that had attracted rational Western minds to convert to Buddhism
also influenced the Thai Buddhist public sphere. Greater availability of doctrinal
knowledge facilitated the discussions of Thai Buddhists. In addition, ethnic Chinese
who had migrated to Thailand acquired cultural identity as Thais through Buddhism, as
in the case of Buddhadasa’s family members, by becoming a part of the Buddhist public
sphere, where they shared in the discussions.
The experiences of Buddhadasa and Thammathat indicated that there were a
number of small informal circles which discussed Buddhism. These developed as
groups of friends who shared an interest in Buddhist doctrines as presented in the
textbooks for ecclesiastic examinations and in foreign Buddhist journals. Their
discussions took place in shop fronts and in monasteries. These small groups were the
smallest fora of discussion in the Buddhist public sphere. Also, the mutual support of
Buddhadasa, the monk in charge of Suan Mokkh, and Thammathat, lay head of the
Khana Thammathan, represented the equal significance of monks and laity in the
Buddhist public sphere. The activities of these two brothers expanded communication
outside their local circle by publishing the journal, Phutthasasana. Through responses
from intellectuals to the journal, Buddhadasa was inspired to further develop his thought,
which was to become controversial within Thailand.
In Chapter II, I explored the propagation activities of Buddhadasa and his

300
followers. Propagation was one of the important activities undertaken in the public
sphere by groups of different opinions in order to share their ideas with others. Most of
the people could learn of new ideas through such propagation activities, and they began
to consider their attitude or position in order to discuss this with other people. In this
chapter, I have traced different types of propagation work undertaken by Buddhadasa
and his followers.
First, I examined the two journals: Buddhadasa’s journal, Phutthasasana, in
comparison with the academic Buddhist journal of Mahamakut Buddhist University,
Thammachaksu. Both were loci of the Buddhist public sphere in the print media.
Articles in them represented the intellectual concerns of Thai Buddhists in each period.
In the beginning the concerns in these journals coincided with each other: they
contained Thai translations of Pali scriptures, only that Phutthasasana was more open
for highly educated lay intellectuals to participate. By the early 1960s, Thammachaksu
had become more conservative, losing novelty, while Buddhadasa, who by then had had
more opportunities to demonstrate his thought outside his journal, was going his own
way by incorporating ideas from other Buddhist orders and teachings from other
religions that he considered useful for overcoming suffering. This meant a
differentiation of their positions in the Buddhist public sphere.
Second, I examined an elite circle of the Buddhist public sphere that conducted
dhamma propagation, the Buddhist Association of Thailand. In this association of
notables, Buddhadasa was acceptable as a respected teacher of Buddhism even for the
lay elite intellectuals, who often had higher education than monks, and he also made
radical lectures inviting ideological conflicts. These were perceived as those of a
communist who was destroying Buddhism.
Third, I investigated the expansion of the Buddhist public sphere into Northern
Thailand, which had a distinctive local tradition. People in the North, who insisted on
their identity and opposed integration with Bangkok, gradually accepted the Sangha
administration, especially through their respect for charismatic North-eastern forest
monks who belonged to the Thammayut Order. In the late 1940s when Chao Chun
Sirorot determined to propagate the dhamma by inviting Panyanantha Bhikkhu as a
representative of Buddhadasa’s group, people in the North were fully a part of the
Buddhist public sphere of Thailand.
Fourth, through the propagation activities of keen lay followers of Buddhadasa,
I explored the place of ordinary, non-elite individuals and the means of discussion and

301
communication in the Buddhist public sphere. The discussions were facilitated
especially by the distribution of low-price books on the dhamma, through Suwichan
Bookshop, the Organisation for the Restoration of Buddhism, and the Sublime Life
Mission. The heads of these groups also played a role as leaders of dhamma discussions
in shop fronts or in public fora, and as selectors of and commentators on worthwhile
topics. The oratorical expression of the dhamma by capable preachers, both lay and monk,
were also effective in inviting people with less education to participate in the Buddhist
public sphere as the audience. Through the efforts of his followers, Buddhadasa’s
teachings were delivered not only to urban residents but also to rural dwellers and they
even crossed the border to Lao people under their socialist government. The discussions
in each locality examining Buddhadasa’s teachings were also parts of the Buddhist
public sphere.
In Chapter III, I examined the discussions about Buddhadasa’s concept of
empty mind as an issue that had been heavily discussed in the Thai Buddhist public
sphere in the late 1960s. Traditionally the concept of emptiness is not explicit in
Theravada scriptures, nor has it been discussed as much as in Mahäyäna Buddhism. It
was quite recently promoted by Buddhadasa among Thai Buddhists as lokuttara dhamma,

or teachings to overcome suffering and achieve nibbäna, possible even for lay people in
the midst of engaging in a secular occupation. Because of its unfamiliarity for the Thais,
some people were doubtful whether empty mind was authentically part of their religious
beliefs.
The discussion about empty mind became heated only after the respected
intellectual, Kukrit Pramoj, disagreed with Buddhadasa about this concept in the
publicised panel discussions at the Khurusapha in 1963 and 1964. By opposing
Buddhadasa, Kukrit insisted that it would be impossible to practise empty mind for lay
people living in the secular world. After the second panel discussion between the two,
the issue was discussed by more people, particularly by Buddhadasa’s opponents and
his followers, who were a part of the Buddhist public sphere.
Their discussions suggested well the ways of the Thai Buddhist public sphere.
There were a number of distortions, and strained interpretations that linked his teaching
with communism, as well as jokes and sarcastic remarks on personal backgrounds in
order to disqualify other discussants and be more influential than the opponents, i.e.
arguments ad hominem. These arguments functioned as means to appeal to people’s
impressions and perceptions in the Buddhist public sphere.

302
 In Chapter IV, I explored the context and significance of Buddhadasa’s conflict
with the Abhidhamma groups in the Buddhist public sphere of the late 1960s. In the
tradition of Theraväda Buddhism, the Abhidhammapitaka embodies the school’s orthodox
interpretation, but Abhidhamma studies in contemporary Thailand indicated that it had
been kept in a marginal position in the Thai Sangha’s ecclesiastical curricula. In the
current education curriculum the Abhidhamma is only studied by those who take the
highest levels of ecclesiastic examination. Otherwise, the Abhidhamma could be studied
at several private classes of either lay or ordained teachers who had little to do with the
Sangha’s authority but were influenced by some Burmese teachers who preached in
Thailand only after the 1930s. Although Abhidhamma studies have not been dominant
in the Thai Sangha’s official understanding of Buddhist doctrines, Abhidhamma groups
became quite influential in the 1960s’ Thai Buddhist public sphere with their highly
articulated doctrine.
In 1965 Buddhadasa, by then already a respected preacher, polemicised the
Abhidhammapitaka as not being the speech of the Buddha himself. On the one hand, this

statement indicated Buddhadasa’s free doctrinal interpretations, which were not

necessarily restricted by the classical commentaries. However, not all the Abhidhamma
groups in contemporary Thailand came into conflict with Buddhadasa nor did they
adhere to the interpretation of the complicated human psychological states by the
traditional exegetes. Some Abhidhamma groups, which had troubles with Buddhadasa,
taught not only the Abhidhamma theory but in addition developed supernatural beliefs
in order to attract people to the Abhidhamma. Their arguments to defend the
Abhidhamma’s authenticity as the Buddha’s own speech even involved manipulations
of the audience’s perception rather than appealing to any faith in the orthodoxy or
refuting with rational arguments. The disputes between Buddhadasa and some
Abhidhamma groups meant a struggle over generally perceived credibility in the public
sphere as well as doctrinal conflict.
In Chapter V, I examined discussions in the Thai Buddhist public sphere
involving dialogue with other systems of thought, particularly the relationships and
ideological exchanges between Buddhadasa and Marxist intellectuals from 1946 to
1958. Marxism spread in Thailand in the relatively liberal political situation during the
post-World War II period. During this time a number of leading Thai Marxists had
contacts with Buddhadasa. It could be said that by the time of their meeting a common
ground for their discussion had been prepared by Buddhadasa, who had promoted

3U3
rational Buddhist ideas which were not related to either rituals or supernatural beliefs.
Through their meetings both Buddhists and Marxists elaborated their thoughts.
Buddhadasa might have been stimulated by Marxists to find a social perspective in
Buddhist teachings, such as non-egoism and self-sacrifice for society, while Thai
Marxist intellectuals developed Buddhist interpretations of Marxism, such as
non-violence and their own “materialisms”, which were not restricted by the
Communist Party’s “orthodoxy”. Such a discussion was never brought up by the
traditional Sangha authority nor by most pious lay Buddhists who instead avoided doing
evil and devoted themselves making merit. The Buddhist public sphere incorporated the
issues into discussions outside monasteries.
Chapter VI dealt with a Buddhadasa’s concept of Dhammic Socialism and its
reception in the Thai Buddhist public sphere from the 1960s to the 1990s, when the
contemporary relevance of Buddhism was seriously challenged by Marxism. Although
Dhammic Socialism sounds like it is inclined towards a socialist ideology intermingled
with religion, it was not directly related to Marxism, but rather reflected a popular Thai
understanding in the 1970s of “socialism” as an ideal social order in a welfare society.
By Dhammic Socialism Buddhadasa meant a harmonious social order in accordance
with the dhamma, or the law of nature. For him, harmony in society was accomplished
by each member of a society who does not take advantage of other people, but instead
feels satisfied with the meeting of basic needs. Dhammic Socialism was particularly
critical of the accumulation of an excessive surplus through greed and held that needs
were to be controlled by wisdom, as formulated in the ten kingly virtues. Such a
viewpoint of Dhammic Socialism entailed a criticism of capitalism. At the same time, it
does not agree with the Marxist concept of materialism, in which the mind of human
beings depends only on material changes. Therefore, Dhammic Socialism was a
Buddhist concept of an ideal society rather than an imitation of Marxism.
During the early 1970s Dhammic Socialism was first received by an elite circle
rather than by activist students, because the latter were attracted by more “orthodox”
Marxist theory and the Communist Party, which was suddenly available to them after
the downfall of the military dictatorship on 14 October 1973. However, activists began
to revisit Buddhism and Dhammic Socialism when they were devastated by the Party’s
actions. They did not see the defect of Marxism as any ideological inferiority to
capitalism. But rather they looked at its indifference to the defiled human mind, which
should be overcome by right thinking. In the 1990s, Dhammic Socialism became a

304
social critique of consumerist, capitalist society, an alternative to Marxism, and since
then engaged Buddhists have been attempting to apply it to the real reform of society.
What I have examined in this thesis is a Thai Buddhist world in which
Buddhadasa, his supporters, his opponents and his followers who followed him from a
distance developed his ideas into activities. Their discussions and activities indicated at
least two remarkable occurrences in twentieth-century Thai Buddhism. First, lay people
became much more concerned with what had formerly been seen as highly rarefied
religious topics, previously dominated by monastery dwellers. For example,
Buddhadasa promoted lokuttara dhamma (transcendent dhamma) such as empty mind,
and its practice in daily life, even for the farmers working in a rice field. His proposal
was criticised, but his opponents, including Kukrit Pramoj and Bunmi Methangkun,
were also lay people who studied Buddhism in depth, for instance, the Abhidhamma
and vipassanä meditation. Regardless of whether they were Buddhadasa’s disciples or not,
lay Buddhists in twentieth-century Thailand did not just follow moral principles to
accumulate merit or to be good people, but instead through Buddhist practice in actions,
in speech and in mind sought more to see some fruit of their practice in their present life.
Especially overcoming of suffering that Buddhadasa placed emphasise on did actually
meet the demand of people living in the secular world. Buddhist sayings, poems, some
passages of sermons, including those of Buddhadasa, were posted around offices or
houses in order to remind people to live in accordance with those teachings. Pious acts
of lay Buddhists were to be given significance by doctrinal interpretations.
Second, Thai Buddhists found it possible for Buddhism to have divergent
political interpretations, especially after the polarised conflict between nationalists who
supported the Thai status quo, and Marxist revolutionaries. From around the middle of
the twentieth century, both the political right and left attempted to interpret Buddhism,
sometimes for ideological support. In such a situation, the Sangha was unable to
dominate political interpretation of the Buddhist dhamma, on which it was based and
which provided legitimation of the traditional Buddhist monarchy. Although the
dhamma had been transmitted in the Sangha, the Sangha could not exclude the lay
masses from being involved in interpretations of the dhamma, because the Sangha also
has the duty to teach Buddhist doctrines to the people. Under the “democratic” system,
or a system of people’s rule, which in 1932 abolished the absolute monarchy, both
politics and the dhamma have become more and more a matter of public discussion that
the Sangha, the national administrative body of the ordained Buddhists, cannot control

305
totally. The more interpreters there are, the more understandings of Buddhist
legitimation became diversified.
When a religious viewpoint is brought to politics, it tends to be concerned with
what is just. In the Buddhist public sphere the dhamma has been discussed by people
who had various political opinions, many of which were not necessarily dominant in the
government. Consequently the Buddhist public sphere, which can be understood as
overlapping a part of the public sphere in general, could function as a watchdog of
government. In Habermas’s model, opinions in the public sphere are supposed to be
reflected in a democratic parliament through representation by elections. Contrary to
this model, the Thai Buddhist public sphere is neither connected to a political channel
nor always represented by a Buddhist political party, because it is primarily made up of
fora which deal with religious discussions, not necessarily related to politics. Instead, I
think the public sphere is more to do with civil society, which recently came to the Thai
people’s attention. Recently some Thai intellectuals have become dissatisfied with the
reality of democracy as it works in Thailand, because they realised that what the
democratic procedure reflects the most are the interests of big business rather than the
interest of unwealthy masses. Instead, these intellectuals promote a strengthening of
civil society, in which people help each other and themselves but do not necessarily rely
on the state. They apply pressure collectively on the state. In the context of civil society,
opinions expressed in the Buddhist public sphere, especially those with social
perspectives, rather work as public opinion that puts pressure on the government
through an informal process.
I do not want to argue here that the traditional functions of Buddhist society
have vanished in contemporary Thailand. Rather, I think that the Sangha is still
transmitting the dhamma to the next generation, and lay people never cease to seek
merit and support the Sangha. However, the concept of the Buddhist public sphere can
shed light on the diversity of opinions and the dynamism of intellectual activities that
have become more and more apparent in Thai society. The contributions that
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and his associates made to the Buddhist public sphere from the
1930s until his death in 1993 had significance for Thai intellectual life far beyond the
religious realm in which they have heretofore been studied.

306
 Bibliography

List of interviews and personal communication

* All the interviews below were conducted by the author in person, unless
otherwise stated. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Prof. Eiji
Murashima and Ms. Malinee Kumsupha, who accompanied me to these interviews,
and greatly complemented my research with their insightful questions and deeper
understandings about the Thai socio-historical context.

Anon Burawat, Bangkok, 23 December 1999.

Anut Aphaphirom, Bangkok, 17 August 1999.
Arun Phet’urai, Mae Chi, Bangkok, 20 December 1998.
Arun Wetchasuan, Bangkok, 2 March 1999.
Bancha Chaloemchaikit, Bangkok, 1 August 1998.
Bancha Chaloemchaikit, telephone conversation, April 2000.
Banchong Santisuknirandon, Father, Bangkok, 5 April 2000.
Barkat bin Faiz Muhammad Siamwalla (Barakat Sayamwala), Bangkok, 28 August
2000.
Bunchan Tetchathammo, Phra, Vientiane, 27 March 2000.
Bunluan Mansap, Bishop, Ubon Ratchathani, 26 December 1999.
Chaiwat Satha-Anand, Bangkok, 27 August 1999.
Chakradharm Dhammasakdi, Bangkok, 12 October 1998.
Chalo Kengrangwat, Ubasika, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
Chamnong Thongprasoet, Bangkok, 30 August 2000.
Chamrat Duangthisan, Bangkok, 31 July 1998.
Charan Ditthanphichai, 21 August 1999.
Chaowarit Khosathammo, Phra, Bangkok, 19 December 1998.
Chatsumam Kabilasingh, Bangkok, 30 November; Nakhon Phathom, 26 December
1998.
Chik Chela, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999.
Chitsai Padungrat, conversation, Chaiya, 21 May 1998; Chaiya, 29 August 1999.
Choem Suwacho, Phra Maha, Bangkok, 16 October 1998.
Chonthira Satyawatthana, Bangkok, 25 August 1999.
Damri Phanit, Chumphon, 6 March 1999.

307
Damrongsak Liangphibun, Bangkok, 10 March 1999.
Dej Tulavardhana, Maj. Gen. (Phon Tri Det Tulawanthana), Bangkok, 15 October 1998.
Dutsadi Methangkuro, Phra, 6 March 1999.
Ekkawit na Thalang, Bangkok, 20 March 1999.
Kanittha Wichiancharoen, Mae Chi Khun Ying, .Bangkok, 30 January 1999, 11 March
1999, 30 August 1999, 30 August 2000.
Kanya Lilalai, Bangkok, 18 December 1999.
Karuna Kusalasai, Bangkok, 6 November 1998, 29 November 1998.
Kasem Sirisamphan, Bangkok, 15 October 1998.
Khachit Siriwattho, Phra Maha, Chiang Rai, 16 March 1999.
Khamchan Wirachit Thera, Sathu, Luang Praban, 31 March 2000.
Khemachit Bhikkhu, 15 December 1998.
Kirti Bunchua (Kirati Bunchua), Bangkok, 7 May 1999.
Kittisak Kittisophano, Phra, Bangkok, 25 August 1999.
Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, Chonburi, 29 April 1999.
Kittiyansunthon, Phra Khru, Sakon Nakhon, 24 December 1999.
Kowit Khemanantha, 29 January 1999.
Lakkhano, Samana (Somlak Losimuang), Nakhon Phathom, 9 October 1998.
Manat Changopsamai, Bishop, Bangkok, 21 August 1999.
Maniphan Charudun and Siri Phetchai, Bangkok, 11 March 1999.
Metta Phanit, Chaiya, 4 March 1999, 5 March 1999, 29 August 1999.
Mitsuo Khawesako, Phra, Kanchanaburi, 25 December 1998.
Muangchai Wannaphut, Mae Chi, Chonburi, 9 March 1999.
Murashima, Eiji, personal communication, 16 July 1999.
Nan Sunthasilo, Phra, Surin, 26 December 1999.
Naowarat Phongphaibun, Kanchanaburi, 2 February 1999.
Nikhom Chetcharoenrak, Bangkok, 19 August 1998.
Panyanantha Bhikkhu, Nonthaburi, 7 October 1998.
Parinya Thewanarumittrakun, Bangkok, 23 August 1999.
Pethai Pathumchantarat (Phethai Pathumchantharat) et. al. at the Soon Klang Thewa
Credit Union Cooperative Limited, Bangkok, 28 December 1999.
Phaisan Wisalo, Phra, Bangkok, 25 August 1999.
308
Phawanaphirat, Phra Khru, Chiang Mai, 17 March 1999.
Phenchai Sirorot, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999.
Phengphan Wongwiwat, Chiang Mai, 17 March 1999.
Phiphop Thongchai, Bangkok, 24 August 1999.
Phirun Chatrawanitchakun, Bangkok, 1 September 1999.
Phisanthammaphani, Phra Khru, Udon Thani, 24 December 1999.
Pho Chanthasuro, Phra, Chaiya, 4 March 1999.
Phong Samaloek, Rong Prathan, Vientiane, 29 April 2000.
Phothirak, Samana, Nakhon Pathom, 6 May 1999.
Phum Detchawongsa Bhikkhu, Vientiane, 28 March 2000.
Plian Panyapathipo, Phra, Chiang Mai, 17 March 1999.
Pracha Hutanuwat, Bangkok, 1 May 1999.
Prani Thammasophinkun, conversation with author, Chaiya, 29 August 1999.
Praphat Uaichai, Bangkok, 14 October 1998.
Prathin Khwan’on, Mae Chi, Paktho, 24 December 1998.
Prawase Wasi, Bangkok, 29 April 1999.
Prawut Simanta, Bangkok, 16 August 1999.
Prayun Wathayanakun, Haji, Family of, Bangkok, 13 March 1999.
Rabaep Thittayano, Phra Maha (ecclesiastical title: Phra Ratchathammnithet, Phra
Thapdilok), Bangkok, 14 October 1998, 21 August 2000.
Ranchuan Inthrakamhaeng, Ubasika Khun, Sakon Nakhon, 15 December 1998.
Ravi Bhavirai (Rawi Phawirai), Bangkok, 4 May 1999.
Rotrung Suannasut, Bangkok, 14 October 1998.
Samphat Phungprasoet, Bangkok, 6 April 2000.
Samroen Kosum, Samutprakan, 9 March 1999.
Saengdao Sayamwala, Khun Ying, Bangkok, 7 April 2000.
Sangdao Siamwalla (Saengdao Sayamwala), Khun Ying, Bangkok, 7 April 2000.
Sansani Sathiansut, Mae Chi, 12 February 1999.
Santikaro Bhikkhu, Bangkok, 10 April 1999; Chaiya, 29 August 1999.
Santisuk Sophonsiri, Bangkok, 16 October 1998.
Sathianphon Wannaphok, Bangkok, 30 April 1999.
Sawai Kaewsom, Bangkok, 21 March 1999, 22 August 2000.
309
Sawai Kaewsom and his friend, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
Sawaeng Bunchaloemwiphat, Bangkok, 19 November 1998.
Seksan Prasoetkun, Bangkok, 31 August 1999.
Seri Phongphit, Bangkok, 5 May 1999.
Sikhamphirayan, Phra, Bangkok, 28 December 1998.
Siri Muangbunmi, Mae Chi, Phetchaburi, 26 December 1998.
Siri Phanit, Chaiya, 4 March 1999.
Siri Phetchai, Bangkok, 11 March 1999.
Sithawat Waniwattiko, Phra, Nonthaburi, 30 April 1999, 20 August 1999.
Soemsap Damrongrat, Chaiya, 29 August 1999.
Sompom Thepsithar (Somphon Thepsittha), Bangkok, 8 April 2000.
Somsong Punyarit, Bangkok, 22 March 1999.
Sophon Rattanakon, Bangkok, 21 December 1998.
Subin Panito, Phra, Trat, 21 August 1999.
Suchip Phunyanuphap, Bangkok, 17 August 1998, 10 March 1999.
Sukhanthasin, Phra Khru, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999.
Sulak Sivaraksa, Bangkok, 19 March 1999.
Sulan Paphatsaso, Phra, Udon Thani, 18 December 1998.
Sumana Hengsawat, Mae Chi, Ratchaburi, 21 November, 24 December 1998.
Sunthoramongkhonwat, Phra Khru, Bangkok, 22 July 1998.
Suphacharawat, Phra Khru, Yasothon, 25 December 1999.
Suphaphan na Bangchang, Mae Chi, Bangkok, 15 January 1999.
Suphot Dantrakun, Bangkok, 8 October 1998, 19 August 1999, 17 December 1999.
Sutthatsi Wongduan, Silacharini, Bangkok, 27 December 1998.
Suthep Chinawalo, Phra, 26 August 1999.
Suvimol Vajrabhaya (Suwimon Watcharaphai), Bangkok, 29 August 2000.
Suwanna Satha-Anand, Bangkok, 4 December 1998.
Thammadilok, Phra, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999.
Thammanun Latphli, 10 October 1998.
Thammathat Phanit, Chaiya, 4 March 1999.
Thapani Nakhonthap, Bangkok, 1 February 1999.
Thawan Phonprasoet, Phra, Vientiane, 1 April 2000.
310
Thepsinghakhanachan, Phra, Chiang Mai, 15 March 1999.
Thipphawan Patthomsathan, Bangkok, 22 August 1998.
Thira Wongphophra, Bangkok, 27 July 1998.
Thongchua, Mae Chi, Phetchaburi, 26 December 1998.
Unchit Tirattana, Ubasika, Bangkok, 21 March 1999.
Utsa Rongkhasuan, Bangkok, 22 December 1998.
Wani Saipradit, Bangkok, 12 October 1998.
Wannasit Waithayasewi, Bangkok, 3 May 1999.
Weng Tochirakan, Bangkok, 23 December 1998, 31 August 1999.
Wilat Maniwat, Bangkok, 1 February 1999.
Wimolsiri Jamanamwej (Wimonsiri Chamnanv/et), Bangkok, 23 December 1999.
Wirot Siriat, Bangkok, 12 March 1999, 31 August 1999, 15 December 1999.
Wisutthikhunrangsi, Phra Khru, Nong Khai, 18 December 1998.

Unpublished documents
Santikaro Bhikkhu, "Translations and publications of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in foreign
languages." [This listing was prepared by Santikaro Bhikkhu, and last updated on
29 September 1997. He emailed me a copy for reference].

Unpublished personal correspondence with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu cited here

* All are in the Suan Mokkh archives.

Prasoet Sapsunthon, letters to Buddhadasa, 8 October 1941, 24 July 1942, 26 August

1942, 31 July 1944, 22 December 1944, 8 January 1945, 5 October 1945, 15
January 1946, 22 November 1946, 3 September 1947, 3 May 1948, 1 November
1948, and 3 January 1972.
Buddhadasa, letter to Prasoet Sapsunthon, 2 December 1944.
Lotthanan (One of Pridi Phamonyong’s personal secretaries), letter to Buddhadasa, 9
January 1943.
Buddhadasa, letter to Pridi Phanomyong, 1 March 1943.
Phoem Siriwat (One of Pridi Phamonyong’s personal secretaries), letter to Buddhadasa,
7 June 1943.

311
Buddhadasa, letter to Phoem Siriwat, 20 June 1943.
Kulap Saipradit, letter to Buddhadasa, 5 September 1951, 3 December 1951, 31 May
1952.
Buddhadasa, letter to Kulap, 19 October 1951.

Video and audio tapes

Khana nittisat lae mulanithi nittisat mahawitthayalai thammasat (The Faculty of Law
and the Foundation for the Faculty of Law, Thammasat University) (ed.), “Prawat
lae phonngan sastrachan chitti tinsaphat” (A history of, and the works of Professor
Chitti Tinsaphat) (23 January 1990) (A commemoration video for the eighty year
anniversary of Prof. Chitti Tinsaphat).
Sawai Kaewsom, “Thammathipatai” (Dhammocracy), Vol. 1 - 4 (Bangkok: Thamma-
charoen) (Tape-recording of Sawai’s speech).
----- , “Thang mai, chiwit mai” (A new way, a new life), Vol. 1 - 3 (Bangkok:
Thammacharoen) (Tape-recording of Sawai’s speech).
....... , “Than Phutthathat son tai sun” (Ven. Buddhadasa taught extinction after death),
Vol. 1 - 3 (Bangkok: Thammacharoen) (Tape-recording of Sawai’s speech).
----- ^“Winyan lang tai mai chai chao phut” ([The teaching about] the vinnäna after death
is not Buddhist), Vol. 1 - 2 (Bangkok: Thammacharoen) (Tape-recording of
Sawai’s speech).

Thai language materials

A’ngun on (pseud. Thammathat), “Ruang samrap naksuksa num: chotmai nak-
nangsuphim num” (For young students: a letter from a young newspaper reporter),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 1 (May 1934), pp. 172 - 175.
Anuson nai ngan phra racha than phloeng sop: nai prasoet sapsunthon
(Commemoration for the cremation: Mr. Prasoet Sapsunthon) (2 April 1995).
Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop: nai sa’at watcharaphai
(Commemoration for the cremation: Mr. Sa’at Warcharaphai) (23 April 1987).
Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha thang phloeng sop: phan ek samak burawat, to. cho. to.
mo. (Commemoration for the cremation of Colonel Samak Burawat -Third Class
Order of the Thai Crown, and Third Class Order of the White Elephant) (15
312
 November 1975).
Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop: phra ratchathamnithet (phian
ratchathamnithet) (Commemoration for the cremation: Phra Ratchathamnithet
(Phian Ratchathamnithet)) (11 April 1966).
Anuson ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop phra thipparinya (Commemoration for the
cremation: Phra Thipparinya) (21 May 1977).
Anuson nai ngan sadet phra ratch damnoen phra ratcha than phloeng sop: phraya
lapphlithammaprakhan (wong latphli) (Commemoration for the cremation: Phraya
Latphlithammaprakhan (Wong Latphli)) (19 September 1968).
“Aphitham chotika witthayalai, mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai nai phra
boromarachupatham” (The Abhidhamma Chotika College, Mahachulalongkon
Ratcha Witthayalai under Royal Patronage) [a brochure].
Aphitham chotika witthayalai (ed.), Ngan mop prakatniyabat aphitham bandit run
34/2540 (Ceremony to confer the qualification of Aphitham Bandit) (Bangkok:
Aphitham Chotika Witthayalai, Mahachulalongkon Ratcha Witthayalai, 1998).
“Aphitham chotika witthayalai, mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai”, Aphitham
chotika witthayalai (ed.), Ngan mop prakatniyabat aphitham bandit run 34/2540,
pp. 13 - 17.
Aphitham mulanithi lae khana sit (The Abhidhamma Foundation and a group of
disciples) (ed.), Alai phra achan bunmi methangkun (In memory of Phra Achan
Bunmi Methangkun) (Bangkok: 6 June 1992).
Ari Phirom, Thai-chin (Thailand-China) (Bangkok: Mitranara kanphim, 1981).
Ariyananthamuni, Phra (Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), Lak phra phutthasasana: oprom
phuchuai phuphiphaksa run raek, pho. so. 2499 (The principles of Buddhism:
preaching for the assistant judges of the first generation, 1956) (Bangkok:
Sukkhaphap chai, 1990).
....... , “Phutthasasana kap sangkhom” (Buddhism and society), Phutthasasana Vol. 29
No. 3 - 4 (August - November 1961), pp. 60 - 76.
Arun Wetchasuan (ed.), Rattha burnt awuso pridi phanomyong (Senior Statesman Pridi
Phanomyong) (Bangkok: Arunwithaya, 1983, 1999).
....... , Wiwattha: khwam-hen-mai-trong-kan rawang mom ratchawong khukrit pramot
kap than phutthathat phikkhu (Dispute: disagreement of opinions between M. R. W.
313
 Kukrit Pramoj and Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) (Bangkok: Arun Witthaya, 1977,
1996).
Arunwati Suwannakanit, “Ngan phoei phrae phutthasasana ruam thawai than phra achan
‘phutthathat phikkhu’” (Co-operative propagation activities to commemorate
Venerable Master Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
Atchalathammaphibucha nai thi raluk nuang nai ngan tham bun khlai wan koet khrop
66 pi lae chalong samanasak phat yot phra khru phawanaphirat (sang sangkitcho)
(Worshipping Atchalathammo in commemoration of the merit making ceremony
for the approaching 66th birthday and the promotion in ecclesiastical title of and
[awarding of an] honorary fan to Phra Khru Phawanaphirat (Sang Sangkitcho)
[current abbot of Wat Pa Achan Tu]) (Chiang Mai: Wat Pa Achan Tu, Amphoe Mae
Taeng, 1996).
“Bannathikan thalaeng” (Editor’s note), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 3 (November 1933),
p. 106.
“Bannathikan thalaeng” (Editor’s announcement), Phutthasasana, Vol. 4 No. 2 (August
1936), pp. 217-218.
“Banthuk chak phaet ying suraphin thanasophon - but-sao: lao doi nang chamrat
nimaphat - phi-sao” (A note by Kulap’s daughter, Dr. Suraphin Thanasophon: a
story by Mrs. Chamrat Nimaphat, Kulap’s elder sister), Lok nangsu (Book World)
(November 1978), pp. 35 - 37.
“Banthuk chiwit lae gnan khong kulap saipradit: banthuk chak chanit saipradit phu pen
panraya” (A note on the life and work of Kulap Saipradit: A note by Chanit
Saipradit, his wife), Lok nangsu (Book World) (November 1978), pp. 29 - 34.
Bo. Cho. [abbr. Bunchuan] Khemaphirat, “Khwam-suam-sun khong phra phutthasasana
nai india” (The decline of Buddhism in India), Phutthasasana, Vol. 4 No. 1 (May
1936), pp. 11-26.
“Bot nam: thammika sangkhomniyom si khiao” (Introduction: green Dhammic
Socialism), Pacharayasan, vol. 20 no. 4 (October - December 1993), pp. 7 - 15.
Bunmi Methangkun, “Phra aphithampidok pen bot suksa thi wa duai ruang arai” (What
kind of lesson is it to study the Abhidhammapitakal ), To top patthakatha phutthathat
phikkhu, pp. 93 - 179.
----- , “Thoi thalaeng” (Postscript), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu, pp. (ko.) -
314
 (so.).
....... , “Kham prarop” (Forward), To top patthakatha phutthathatphikkhu, pp. 1 - 29.
[......- (ed.)], To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu (Refuting the lecture of
Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Aphitham mulanithi, 1965, 1980).
Chai’anan Samutwanit (ed.), Sanniphon khong thianwan (Writings of Thianwan)
(Bangkok: Ongkan Naksuksa Mahawitthayalai Ramkhamhaeng, 1974).
Chalong Cheyakhom, Than bo. cho. khemaphirat (Ven. Bunchuan Khemaphirat)
(Bangkok: Somsan).
Chanbannakit, Phra, “Sing thi yang mai at khaochai kan dai” (Things that still might not
be able to be understood), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu, pp. 180 - 202.
Chanya Sutthiyano, Dr. Phra Maha, “Chao Chun Sirorot: Phu mi lorn haichai pen
thamma” (Chao Chun Sirorot: a person who breathed of the dhamma),
Thammaphinanthanakan nai ngan chapanakit sop: Chao Chun Sirorot, pp. 11 - 15.
----- (ed.), Chiwit, kho kbit iae ngan khong Chao Chun (Life, thoughts, and works of
Chao Chun) (Bangkok: Borisat Amarin).
----- , Chiwit lae ngan khong Than Panyanantha (The life and work of Ven.
Panyanantha) (Bangkok: Borisat Amarin, 1991).
Chao phuttha nikhom, “Phuttha nikhom kap phuttha sathan” (The Phuttha Nikhom and
the Phuttha Sathan), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 65 - 66.
Chatchawarit Kasemsan, Mom Chao, “Kham top panha khong batluang khong mom
chao chatchawarit”, Thammachaksu, Vol. 24 No. 10 (February 2482/1939), pp. 959
-973.
Chatthip Natsupha (Chatthip Nartsupha), “Naew-khit ruang kansuksa, prapheni lae
watthanatham” (Thoughts on education, custom and culture), Watthanatham thai
kap khabuankan plian plaeng sangkhom (Thai culture and movements of social
change) (Bangkok: Samnak-phim Chulalongkon Mahawitthayalai, 1991), pp. 3 -
15.
Chayanantho, Phikkhu (Phra Anan Senakhan) (ed.), Khamson khong diarathi
(Teachings of a heretic) (Bangkok: Ongkan phithak phutthasat, 1979).
Chit Phumisak (Samnakphim nok huk ed.), Karani ‘yon bok*23 tula (The 23 October
incident of ‘throwing onto the ground’) (Samnakphim nok huk, 1986).
“Chiwaprawat than phra achan tu atchalathammo” (Life history of Than Phra Achan Tu
315
 Atchalathammo), Atchalathammaphibucha nai thi raluk nuang nai ngan tham bun
khlai wan koet khrop 66 pi lae chalong samanasak phat yot phra khru
phawanaphirat (sang sangkitcho), pp. 1 - 86.
“Chiwit lae ngan khong achan naep mahaniranon” (Life and work of Naep
Mahaniranon), Panyasan (Journal of pannä), No. 15 (21 September 1983), pp. 1 - 6 .
Chiwit lae phon ngan khong achan phon rattanasuan (Life and works of Achan Phon
Rattanasuan) (Bangkok: Rongphim winyan, 1993).
Chonlatee Yangtrong, “Khwam-khit thang kanmuang khong phutthathat phikkhu” (The
political thoughts of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), M.A. thesis, Department of
Government, Graduate School, Chulalongkom University, 1990).
Chonthila Sattayawatthana (ed.), Khru Thep (Bangkok: Thai Watthana Phanit, 1992).
Chotika Thammachariya, Phra Satthamma, Paramattha chotika paritchet thi 1-2-3: chit,
chettasik, rup, nipphan (Chotika’s supreme teaching lesson 1-2-3: citta, cetasika, rüpa,

nibbäna) (Bangkok: Mulanithi Saitnamma Chotika, 1997).

“Chotmai naksuksa num: chak nakrian thai nai muang manila (Philippines)” (A letter of
a young student: from a Thai student in Manila (Philippines)), Phutthasasana, Vol.
2 No. 3 (November 1934), pp. 354 - 357.
Chuai Phulaphoem, “Chak samnak phim” (From the publisher), Siburapha, Udomtham
kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana.
----- , “Chom na phu-praphan: wilat maniwat” (The face of the writer: Wilat Maniwat),
Wilat Maniwat, Thamma samrap khon nok wat.
Chun Sirorot, Chao, Chiwaprawat nai chun sirorot thi chao khong khian lao wai eng:
pho. so. 2439 - 2529 (A life history of Mr. Chun Sirorot, which is written by
himself: 1896-1986).
Damrong Ratchanuphap, Somdet Krom Phraya, Nithan borankhadi (Ancient stories)
(Published as a cremation volume for Nang Nian Laphanukrom, 1968).
Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung mua khao phut thung rao (Fifty years of Suan Mokkh:
Part I When they spoke of us) (Bangkok: Suan usom mulanithi, 1982).
Itsarachon (pseud. Kulap Saipradit), “Phuttha-tham lae santiphap” (The Buddha’s
dhamma and peace), Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung, pp. 1205 - 1209.
----- , “Thi ni lae thi nan” (Here and there), originally published in Prachamit (10
March 1946), Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung, pp. 1201 - 1204.
316
Kaptan Samut (pseud. Samak Burawat), “Phutthit phachoen na kap khommiunit”
(Buddhism in the face of communism), Aksonsan, Vol. 4 No. 5 (August 1952), pp.
1 0-45.
....... , Phutthit phachoen na kap kommiunit (Buddhism in the face of communism)
(Klum Yaowachon Itsara, 1974).
Karuna Kusalasai, Chiwit thi luak mai dai (Life without a choice) (Bangkok: Mae kham
phang, 1986).
....... (ed.), Phutthathat ramluk: likhit than ‘phutthathat’ thung nong chai doi tham,
‘karuna kusalasai ’ (A memory of Buddhadasa: letters from Ven. Buddhadasa to a
younger brother in the dhamma, Karuna Kusalasai) (Bangkok: Mae Kham Phang,
1993).
Karuna Kusalasai, see also Samanen thai nai saranat.
Kasaem Sirisamphan, Sunthari Asawai, Atcharaphon Kamutthaphisamai, Sathaban Thai
Khadi Suksa (eds.), “Prawat mom ratcha wong khukrit pramot” (A life history of M.
R. W. Kukrit Pramoj), Anuson nai ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop satstrachan
phon tri mom ratcha wong khukrit pramot, po. cho., mo. po. cho., mo. wo. mo.
(Commemoration at the cremation of Professor Major General Mom Ratcha Wong
Kukrit Pramoj, Pathom Chulachomklao, Maha Paramaphon Chang phuak, Maha
Wachira Mongkut [these three are decorations that Kukrit received from the King])
(23 December 1995), pp. 43 -51.
Khaisaeng, “Chotmai top nak-nangsuphim num”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 2 (August
1934), pp. 296 - 299.
Khamhuno (pseud. Chamrat Duangthisan), “Chao na ‘phu chit wang’” (A farmer with
‘empty mind’), Pun,Arai thuk, araiphit, pp. 139 - 144.
----- , “Tua ku lae khong ku” (Me and mine), Y\m,Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 145 - 150.
Khana kammakan chat ngan ramluk pluang wannasi (ed.), Prawat phonngan lae kham
ramluk pluang wannasi: kwi-nakkhian-naksu (History and work of, and word of
condolence for Pluang Wannasi: poet, writer, and fighter) (Bangkok: Chonniyom,
1597).
Khana phoei phrae phuttha-tham (The dhamma propagation group), “Krap rian than phu
borichak” (A report for the donors), Phai khong phutthasasana.
Khana thammathan lae phu thi khaorop nai khunnatham khong phraya lapphli-
317
 thammaprakhan (The Khana Thammathan and a group which respects the moral
principles of Phraya Lapphlithammaprakhan) (ed.), Mahawitthayalai chiwit khong
phutthathat phikkhu, panya nai phutthasasana nikai sen khong khun prachak (“A
university of life” by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, and “Insight in the Zen School of
Buddhism” by Khun Prachak) (A cremation volume for Phraya Lapphli­
thammaprakhan, 19 September 1968).
“Kham Thalaeng” (announcement), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, p. 2.
Kham thalaeng kitchakan nai rop pi phutthasakkarat 2533 khong phutthasamakhom
haeng prathet thai nai phra boromarachupatham (The announcement of the
activities in the year 1990 of the Buddhist Association of Thailand under Royal
Patronage) (Bangkok: Samnakngan khong phutthasamakhom haeng prathet thai,
1992).
Khana luksit (a group of disciples), Rom ngao wat nongpaphong (Shadow of Wat
Nongpaphong) (1989).
Khanungnit Chanthabut, Sathana lae botbat khong phra phutthasasana nai prathet thai
(The situation and the role of Buddhism in Thailand) (Bangkok: Klum prasan’ngan
sasana phua sangkhom, 1989).
“Khao phra lokanat nam phikkhu thai ok pai chak prathet sayam” (News about Phra
Lokanatha, who leads Thai monks out of Siam), Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 2
(August 1934), pp. 284 - 294.
“Khrongkan sanruat prachamati phua sathon phap ruam sangkhom, kanmuang,
watthanatham thai kon pi 2000” (Public opinion survey for reflecting a total picture
of Thai society, politics, and culture before 2000), Thai phot (Thai Post, a daily
newspaper), 13 December 1999, p. 2.
Khukrit Pramot (Kukrit Pramoj), “Chalachon nai wiatnam tai” (Uprisings in South
Vietnam), Thammachaksu, Vol. 48 No. 11 (August 1963).
----- , “Hetkan nai wiatnam tai” (Incidents in South Vietnam), Thammachaksu, Vol. 48
No. 12 (September 1963).
----- , “Khwam-wunwai thi wiatnam tai” (Confusions in South Vietnam),
Thammachaksu, Vol. 49 No. 1 (October 1963).
....... , “Phuttha borisat nai wiatnam tai” (Buddhists in South Vietnam), Thammachaksu,
Vol. 49 No. 2 (November 1963).
318
----- , “Ratthaban wiatnam tai kap phuttha borisat” (The South Vietnamese government
and Buddhists), Thammachaksu, Vol. 49 No. 2 (December 1963).
----- , “Soi suan phlu”, Sayam rat rai wan (Siam rath daily newspaper) (10 July 1993),
p. 5.
“Kitchakan ngan khong than achan bunmi methangkun” (Activities of Ven. Bunmi
Methangkun), Aphitham mulanithi lae khana sit, Alai phra achan bunmi
methangkun, pp. 7 - 8 .
Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, “Dae phra thipparinya” (To Phra Thipparinya), Anuson ngan phra
ratcha than phloeng sop phra thipparinya, pp. 26 - 28.
....... , Kha khommiunit mai bap (Killing communists is not demeritorious) (Bangkok:
Mulanithi aphitham mahathat witthayalai, 1976).
----- , “Ruang chit wang nok phra traipidok mi khwam-samkhan nai patchuban mak lae
ruang phra phuttha chao son lokkuttara tham nai thammathinna kho plian thamma
mai” (About [the teaching of] empty mind which is not in the Tipitaka and which
places a lot of emphasis on the present time; and about [the story that] the Buddha
taught lokkuttara dhamma to Dhammadinna who asked for a new dhamma), Pun, Arai
thuk, arai phit, pp. 126 - 131.
Krachang Nanthaphot, Mahanikai - thammayut (Mahanikai Order and Thammayut
Order) (Nonthabri: Santi tham, 1985).
“Lak 12 kho haeng phra phutthasasana khong nai khritmat hamfre, nayok ho
phutthasasanik haeng krung london” (The twelve principles of Buddhism by Mr.
Christmas Humphreys, the President of the London Buddhist Lodge),
Thammachaksu, Vol. 31 No. 9-12 (June - October 1946), pp. 77 - 84.
Kukrit Pramoj, see Khukrit Pramot.
Kulap Saipradit, see Itsarachon; Siburapha.
Luangpu wean suchinno (Chiang Mai: Wat Doi Mae Teang, Amphoe Phrao).
Maha thera prawat: somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera) (A history of the
great elder: Somdet Phra Phutthachan (At Atsapha Maha Thera)) (Bangkok:
Mahachulalongkon ratcha witthayalai, 1990).
“Mua than panyanantha phut thung chao chun sirorot” (When Ven. Panyanantha talked
about Chao Chun Sirorot), Phra Maha Chanya, Chiwit, kho khit lae ngan khong
chao chun, pp. 187 - 205.
319
“Mulanithi aphitham mulanithi” (Foundation for the Abhidhamma Foundation) [a
brochure].
Maniphan and Utsa Charudun, “Than achan naep kap pathom haet hai koet samakhom
sun khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana lae mulanithi phumiphalo phikkhu” (Ven.
Naep and the origins of the Association for Centre of the Research on Buddhism
and the Phumiphalo Bhikkhu Foundation), Thang bamphen kuson phua ok chak
thuk haeng kan koet, pp. 1 -1 6 .
Manlika Watcharaphai, untitled condolence, Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
Manop (pseud. Wilat Maniwat), “Thamma parithat Phutthathat Phikkhu” (The dhamma
critique of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung, pp.1166 - 1200.
“Matu buchanuson” (Commemoration for mother), Phutthasasana, Vol. 16 No. 3
(August 1948), pp. 79 - 84.
Mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, “Thoi thalaeng” (Preface), Phairot Sisakunwong,
et al., Khu mu banchi thanakhan mu ban, pp. 3 - 7 .
Naksuksa phra aphitham (Students of the Abhidhamma; including Sa’nga Suphat,
Suphani Wirawat, Chaluai Phenphaibun, Suchit Sa’nganmu, and Chuai Kannawat),
“Samnao chotmai: kho khongchai khong naksuksa” (A draft of a letter: some
students’ worries), To top patthakatha phutthathat phikkhu, pp. 81 —92.
Narin Phasit, Chuai bamrung chat (Assist nurturing the nation) (1914).
Nakhon that (City Slave; pseud. Chit Phumisak), “Phuttha pratchaya kae saphap
sangkhom trong kilet, watthuniyom daialektik kae saphap thi tua sangkhom eng, mi
chai patirup tarn baep khong sitthantha, pratchaya watthuniyom daialektik kap
pratchaya khong sitthantha phit kan yang chakan thi trong ni” (Buddhist philosophy
solves social problems at the place of defilement, while the philosophy of
dialectical materialism solves it in society itself, unlike the reform by Siddhartha.
The philosophy of dialectical materialism and the philosophy of Siddhartha are
totally different in this sense.), Chit Phumisak, Karani ‘yon bok’ 23 tula, pp. 27 -
45.
Naowarat Phongphaibun, “Watthuniyom - chittaniyom kap phutthasasana”
(Materialism - spiritualism and Buddhism) in Naowarat Phongphaibun, Dap thi
mok yu nai chiwon (A sword hidden under the yellow robe) (Bangkok: Suan
nangsu, 1978), pp. 231 - 237.
320
Nikolat Bennet (Nicolas Bennett?), “Santi withi kap kan-sawaeng ha thang thi sam”
(The peaceful method and pursuit of the third way), Phutthachak, Vol. 30 No. 6-7
(June-July 1976).
Panyanantha Phikkhu, Chiwit lae phonngan khong than phutthathat (Bangkok:
Atammayo).
Panyanantha Phikkhu, see also Pathumuttara Phikkhu; Thammakosachan, Phra.
Parien dek (A boy with the Pali qualification; a pseudonym of Buddhadasa), “Thammai
mai pai kap Phra Lokkanat” (Why I did not go with Lokanatha), Phutthasasana,
Vol. 2 No. 1 (May 1934), pp. 210 - 212.
Phadungsulakkarit, Phra, (A thayok of Wat Prok), “Prawat phra phatthanta wilasa” (A
history of Phra Phatthanta Wilasa), Phra Phatthanta Wilasa, Thamma bet talet, pp. 5
- 8.

Phairot Sisakunwong, Charoen Sisaeng, and Chamnong Somprasong, Khu mu banchi

thanakhan mu ban (A handbook for village-bank accounting) (Bangkok: Mulanithi
phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, 1994).
Phaisan Wisalo, Phra, “Yutthasat thammika sangkhomniyom lae thang ok haeng
phuttha-tham” (The strategy of Dhammic Socialism and an exit [i.e., solution of a
problem] at the Buddha Dhamma), Pacharayasan, Vol. 25 No. 3 (March - June
1999), pp. 3 2 -3 7 .
Phaisan Wisalo, Phra, So. Siwarak, Prawet Wasi, and Wira Sombun, Patthakatha khrop
rop 60 pi phra thammapidok (po. o. payutto): phuttha-tham kap udomkan samrap
sattawat thi 21 (The memorial lecture for the sixtieth anniversary of Phra
Thammapidok: Buddha-Dhamma and the aim of the twenty-first century)
(Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimuthong, 1999).
Phaisan Wongwarawisit (Phaisan Wisalo, Phra), “Than phutthathat kap thammika
sangkhomniyom” (Buddhadasa and Dhammic Socialism), Phutthathat kap khon
run mai, pp. 6 0 -9 3 .
Pharotratchasuphit, Phraya, Witthi prakop ahan mangsawirat (Recipes for vegetarian
dishes) (Bangkok: Chomrom Phim Thammathan Pao Keng Teng).
Pathumuttara Phikkhu (Panyanantha Bhikkhu), “Phikkhu kap Kanriarai”,
Phutthasasana, vol. 15 No. 3 - 4 (August - November 1947), pp. 155 -160.
Phatthanta Wilasa, Phra, Thamma bet talet (A small piece of the dhamma) (Bangkok:
321
 Samakhom sun khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana, 1982).
“Phiksu doen pai phae sasana tang prathet” (A monk who goes to propagate Buddhism
in foreign countries), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1, No. 3 (November 1933), pp. 64 - 73.
“Phiksu o e” (An idle/inactive/inefficient monk), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Tamra du phra
lae winai khong phiksu, pp. 12 - 13.
Phimolatham, Phra, “Anuson khun phra thipparinya” (In memory of Khun Phra
Thipparinya), Anuson ngan phra ratcha than phloeng sop phra thipparinya, pp. 13
-1 4 .
Phinit Rakthongko (ed.), Thammanukrom thammakhot (Thammakhot dictionary of the
dhamma) (Chaiya: Thammathan Mulanithi, 1994).
“Pho khong rao” (our father), Anuson: nai sa ’at watcharaphai.
Photchananukrom chabap ratchabandit sathan pho. so. 2525 (A Thai dictionary: the
Royal Academy 1982 edition).
“Phra achan bunmi methangkuro: duang prathip duang ek haeng phra aphitham” (Phra
Achan Bunmi Methangkuro: the number one light of the Abhidhamma), Aphitham
mulanithi lae khana sit (ed.), Alai phra achan bunmi methangkun, pp. 1 - 6 .
Phuwa ratchakan changwat lae khana kromkan changwat surat thani (Provincial
Governor and Administrative Council of Surat Thani) (ed.), Changwat surat thani
- kan chalong 25 phutthasattawat (Surat Thani province - Celebration for the 25th
Buddhist century) (Bangkok, 1957).
“Phra ratcha prarop khong phra bat somdet phra mongkut klao chao yu hua (Khat ma
chak bot phra ratcha niphon kan thi 9, thetsana sua pa)” (A statement by King
Vajiravudh (selected from his writing in chapter 9, Preaching to the Wild Tiger
scouts)), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Tamra du phra lae winai khong phiksu.
Phutthacharanuson nai ngan phra ratchathan phloeng sop phra yanasitthachan (luang
pu sim phutthacharo) (Chiang Mai: Samnak song Tham pha Plong, Amphoe
Chiang Dao, 1993).
Phutthakhosachan yanawara thera, Chao phra khun somdet phra, Phra mongkhon
wisesakatha [a commemoration book distributed by his disciples at his cremation]
(1952).
Phutthasasana (chabap phiset: sadudi khru thammathat phanit) (Special issue: Tribute
to the teacher, Thammathat Phanit), Vol. 68 No. 3 (August, September, October
322
 2000 ).

Phuttha sathan chiang mai (A commemoration volume for the establishment of the
Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai) (1958).
Phutthathat kap khon run mai: mua khon num sao tham thung rak khong
khwam-pen-thai (Buddhadasa and the new generation: when youth asks about the
root of Thainess) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1983).
Phutthathat (Buddhadasa), “Anumothana” (Benediction), Anuson: nai sa’at
watcharaphai.
....... , “Anumothana” (Blessing), Khana thammathan et al, Mahawitthayalai chiwit
khong phutthathat phikkhu ..., pp. (3) - (11).
----- , “Anumothana” (Benediction), Khu mu manut, pp. ko. - kho.
....... , Aphitham khu arai? (What is abhidhamma?) (Bangkok: Samnak nangsu
thammabucha khong khana phoei phrae witthi kan damnoen chiwit an prasoet,
1978).
----- , Ariya sat chak phra ot (Four noble truths from the Buddha’s words) ) (Chaiya:
Mulanithi thammathan, 1998).
----- , Boromatham: oprom phiksu nisit chulalongkon mahawitthayalai phansa pi 2512
(Supreme dhamma: training for student monks from Chulalongkom University in
the 1969 rain retreat) (Chaiya: Mulanithi thammathan, 1982), part I, II.
----- , Chumnum patthakatha chut phuttha-tham (The collection of lectures on the
Buddha dhamma) (Bangkok: Sukkhaphap chai, 1992).
....... , “Kanmuang chanit chuai lok dai” (A kind of politics that can help the world),
Kanmuang Khu Thamma, pp. 89 - 135.
----- , Kanmuang khu thamma (Politics is the dhamma) (Bangkok: Arunwithaya).
----- , Kan-tham-ngan duai chit wang phua sangkhom (Working for society with empty
mind) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1975).
-......, Kan-tham-ngan duai chit wang phua sangkhom khong than phutthathat (Working
with empty mind for the sake of society by Ven. Buddhadasa) (Samutprakan:
Ongkan funfu phutthasasana).
----- , Kan to tan kae khai khwam-wiparit khong lok (2519) [a booklet for free
distribution; 27 May 1977].
....... , “Kho khuan sap kiao kap lak phutthasasana rawang nikai tang tang”,
323
Phutthasasana, Vol. 15 No. 1 (February 1947), pp. 35 - 48.
Khu mu manut (A handbook for humankind) (Bangkok: Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana, 1959).
-, Khu mu manut chabap sombun (A handbook for humankind: complete edition)
(Bangkok: Thammasapha, 1988, 1992).
-, Khumsap chak phra ot (A treasure trove from the Buddha’s words) (Chaiya:
Mulanithi thammathan).
-, “Lak phutthasasana 12 kho khong hamfre” (The twelve principles of Buddhism
by Humphreys), Phutthasasana, Vol. 15 No. 1 (February 1947), pp. 5 - 33.
-, Mahidon tham (.Mahitala dhamma) (Chaiya: Mulanithi thammatham).
-, “Makhapunnamikatha”, Chumnum thamma banyai ruang chit wang (Collection
of dhamma lectures on empty mind) (Bangkok: Arun witthaya, 1992).
-, Phai khong phutthasasana (Danger to Buddhism) (Bangkok: Mulanithi phoei
phrae chiwit prasoet, 1966).
-, Phra phutthasasana chan phuthuchon (Buddhism at the level of the
unenlightened ordinary people) (Bangkok: Klum suksa lae patibat tham, reprint
edition).
-, “Phukhao haeng withi phuttha-tham” (Mountainous hindrance on the way of the
Buddha-Dhamma), Chumnum pathakatha chut phuttha-tham, pp. 126- 169.
-, Phut-khrit nai thatsana than phutthathat: chaikhwam haeng sasana khrit thi chaw
phut khwan ruchak (Buddhist and Christian in the view of Ven. Buddhadasa: the
meaning of Christianity that Buddhists have to know) (Bangkok: Samnakphim
thianwan, 1984).
-, Phutthaprawat chak phra ot (The life of the Buddha in his own words) (Chaiya:
Mulanithi thammathan, 1936, 1982).
-, Phutthasasana kap sangkhom (Bangkok: Khana kammakan mahachulalongkon
ratchawitthayalai, 1956).
-, Phuttha-tham kap chetanarom khong prachathipatai (Buddha-Dhamma and the
spirit of Democracy) (Nonthaburi: Kong thun wutthi tham).
“Prachathipatai baep sangkhomniyom” (Democracy in the style of socialism),
Phutthathat Phikkhu, Kanmuang khu thamma, pp. 136 - 174.
-, Rian phutthasasana nai 15 nathi (Studying Buddhism in fifteen minutes)
324
(Bangkok: Sukkhaphap chai, 1998).
“Ruang watthuniyom kap manoniyom” (On materialism and idealism),
Boromatham Phak ton, pp. 41 - 60.
“Sangkhomniyom chanit thi chuai lok dai” (A kind of socialism that can help the
world), Thammika sankhomniyom, pp. I l l - 150.
-, “Sangkhomniyom tarn lak haeng phra sasana” (Socialism according to the
principle of religion), Thammika sankhomniyom, pp. 57 - 110.
-, Sing thi rao yang khaochai kan mai dai (The things that we have not yet
understood) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana).
-, Sip pi nai suan mok: lao ruang chiwit nai wai num (Ten years in Suan Mokkh:
talking about the life when young) (Nonthaburi: Kong thun wutthit tham).
-, “ ‘Sunnatä’ huachai khong phutthasasana” (Emptiness: the heart of Buddhism),
Klum Watcharaphon (ed.), Phuttha-tham kam mu diao, pp. 33 - 64.
Sunyata - chit wang - chit doem thae khong than phutthaihat {Sunnatä, empty
mind, and original mind by Ven. Buddhadasa) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana).
-, “Tai laeo koet ik ru mai” (Are we reborn again or not?), Pun Chongprasoet, Rian
ru phutthasasana phai nai 15 nathi, pp. 19 - 24.
-, Tam roi phra arahan (Following the footprints of arahant) (Chaiya: Mulanithi
thammathan).
Tamra du phra lae winai khong phiksu (A field-guide to monks and their
precepts) (Bangkok: Thammasapha, 1994).
-, Tham bun sam baep (Three kinds of merit making) (Bangkok: Mulanithi phoei
phrae chiwit prasoet, 1968).
~, “Thamma kap kanmuang, kanmuang kap thamma” (Dhamma and politics,
politics and dhamma), Kanmuang khu thamma, pp. 1 - 76.
“Thamma khu phra chao?” (Is the dhamma God?), Phutthasasana, Vol. 31 No. 3
- 4 (August - November 1963).
“Thamma nai thana latthi kanmuang” (Dhamma as an ideology of politics),
Kanmuang Khu Thamma, pp. 77 - 88.
~, Thamma thi khrai khan mai dai (The dhamma that no one can oppose)
(Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana).
325
----- , Thammika sankhomniyom (Bangkok: Sayam prathet, 1995).
----- , “Top panha batluang”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 7 No. 3 - 4 (November 1939 -
February 1940), pp. 280 - 335.
....... , “Uppasak haeng kan khao chai thamma” (Obstacles in the understanding of the
dhamma) (A sermon at Wat Noranatthasunthrikkaram, Bangkok on 4 February
1968), Pun,Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 72 - 109.
....... , “Uppasak haeng kan phoei phrae tham” (Obstacles in the propagation of the
dhamma) (A lecture given at Wat Mahathat on 28 November 1967), Pun, Arai thuk,
arai phit, pp. 9 -7 1 .
....... , “Witthi haeng kan khao thung phuttha-tham, Patthakatha Phiset”, Chumnum
patthakatha chut phuttha-tham, pp. 1 - 70.
Phutthathat Phikkhu, see also Ariyananthamuni, Phra; Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
Pracha Pasannathammo, Phra (Pracha Hutanuwat), Lao wai mua wai sonthaya:
atchiwaprawat khong than phutthathat (Talking in the twilight years: an
autobiography of Venerable Buddhadasa) (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong,
1988).
----- , “Than phutthathat kap kan-patiwat watthanatham” (Ven. Buddhadasa and
revolution in culture), Phutthathat kap khon run mai, pp. 161 - 162.
----- , “Phutthasasana kap khwam-yuttitham thang sangkhom” (Buddhism and justice in
society), Pacharayasan, Vol. 13 No. 4 (September - October 1986), pp. 114 - 119.
----- , Phawana kap kan-rap-chai sangkhom (Meditation practice and serving society)
(Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1981).
Pracha Pasannathammo, Phra, and Santisuk Sophonsiri (eds.), Phap chiwit 80 pi
phutthathat phikkhu (Pictorial biography of 80 years of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu)
(Bangkok: Mulanithi sathian koset - nakhaprathip and Samnakphim mulanithi
komon khimthong, 1986).
Prathum Chumphenphan (ed.), Chaiya - surat thani (Bangkok: Krung Sayam Kanphim,
1972, 1976).
“Prawat chao phra khun somdet phra phutthakhosachan yanawara thera” (A history of
Somdet Phra Phutthakhosachan), Phutthakhosachan yanawara thera, Phra
mongkhon wisesakatha, pp. (1) - (28).
Prawat khong phra khruba chao siwichai: nakbun haeng lanna thai (Biography of
326
 Khruba Siwichai: a meritorious person in Lanna Thai) (a commemoration book for
the opening of the Phra Khruba Chao Siwichai Museum, 1994).
“Prawat lae phonngan doi yo: phra thammathiraratmahamuni (chodok yanasit thera,
parien tham 9 prayok)” (Life and work in summary: Phra Thammathiraratmaha­
muni (Chodok Yanasit Thera, ninth level Pali qualification)), Phra Thammathirarat­
mahamuni, Phet nai duang chai, pp. 242 - 243.
“Prawat nang khluan phanit” (A history of Mrs. Khluan Phanit), Phutthasasana, Vol. 16
No. 3 (August 1948), pp. 85 - 88.
“Prawat phraya lapphlithammaprakhan”, Khana thammathan et al., Mahawitthayalai
chiwit khong phutthathat phikkhu ..., pp. ko. - tho.
Prawat wat santitham, amphoe muang, changwat chiang mai, thi raluk nai ngan
chaloeng phra ubosot, phra chedi (A history of Wat Santitham, Muang District,
Chiang Mai Province, to commemorate the celebration [for the opening] of the hall
and the pagoda) (1997).
Prawat wat umong suan phuttha-tham (A history of Wat Umong Suan Phuttha-tham)
(Chiang Mai: Khana Phutthanikhom).
Prawet Wasi (Prawase Wasi), Bon sen thang chiwit (On the road of life) (Bangkok:
Samnakphim Mo Chawban), Vol. 1 - 7 .
------ , “Thammai son tham mai dai phon” (Why do we not get a result?), Phutthachak,
Vol. 30 No. 7 (July 1976).
------ , Thammika sangkhom (Bangkok: Mulanithi komon khimthong, 1995).
Prayun Wathayanakun, “Wan idilawat ha”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 21 No. 3-4 (August -
November 1953), pp. 127 - 132.
“Prayut” [This name appears to be either a first name or a pseudonym], “Samnao
chotmai thung kittiwuttho phikkhu” (The draft of a letter to Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu),
Pun,Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 132 - 137.
Prasoet Patthamasukhon, Ratthasapha thai nai rop 42 pi (Forty-two years of the Thai
Parliament) (Bangkok: Ratthakit seri, 1974).
Pricha Changkhwanyun, Khwam-khit thang kanmuang khong than phutthathat phikkhu
(Buddhadasa’s thoughts on politics) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Chulalongkon
Mahawitthayalai, 1993).
Pridi Phanomyong, Chiwaprawat yo khong nai pridi phanomyong (A short biography of
327
 Mr. Pridi Phanomyong) (Mulanithi Pridi Phanomyong, 1983, 1992).
....... , Khwam-pen-anitchang khong sangkhom (Bangkok: Warasan mo
khwam-yuttitham, 1988).
Pun Chongprasoet (ed.), Arai thuk, arai phit [Originally published by Ongkan funfu
phutthasasana, 1973; reprinted by Mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet, 1982].
....... , “Cha tham yang rai chung cha riak wa tham-ngan duai chit wang” (What should
we do to be called working with empty mind?), Phutthathat, Kan-tham-ngan duai
chit wangphua sangkhom, pp.23 - 29.
----- (ed.), “Chit praphatson - chit doem thae - chit wang (Yo chak kham banyai khong
than phutthathat phikkhu)” (A pure mind, a truly original mind, an empty mind
[Summary of a lecture by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu]), Pun, Arai thuk, arai phit, pp.
110 - 121 .

....... , “Kham kho rong” (A request), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Khu mu manut, pp. 167 -
170.
----- , “Khwam-hen khong mom ratchawong khukrit nai ruang ‘chit wang”’ (The view
of M. R. W. Kukrit on ‘Empty mind’), Phutthathat, Sunyata - chit wang - chit
doem thae, pp. 19 - 32.
....... , “Maihet” (An endnote), Kittiwuttho Bhikkhu, “Ruang chit wang nok phra
traipidok ...”,Arai thuk, arai phit, p. 131.
....... , “Mahorasop thang winyan” (Amusement for the soul), Phutthathat Phikkhu, Khu
mu manut, p. 171.
----- , “Nae nam nangsu ‘Khwam-ngom’ngai’” (Book recommendation, “Superstitious
belief’), Tai di kwa yu ru, pp. 7 - 12.
----- , “Patchima likhit” (Pacchima likhit', epilogue), Pun, Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 174 -
185.
----- , “Phuttha phot: kan hai thamma pen than yom chana kan hai than thang puang”
(The Buddha’s saying: giving the dhamma is the alms that would win any kind of
alms), Phutthathat, Thamma thi khrai khan mai dai.
----- , Rian ru phutthasasana phai nai 15 nathi (Studying Buddhism within fifteen
minutes) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu phutthasasana).
----- , “Rian ru phutthasasana phai nai 15 nathi”, Pun Chongprasoet, Rian ru
phutthasasana phai nai 15 nathi, pp. 5 - 18.
328
......Wiwattha (Khwam-mai-hen-trong-kan) rawang mom ratcha wong khukrit pramot
kap than phutthathat phikkhu (A dispute: disagreement of opinion between M. R.
W. Kukrit Pramoj and Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) (Ongkan funfu phutthasasana, 1
April 1964; reprinted in Bangkok: Pho. cho. po., 1986).
Rabiap Sunthralikhit, Khun Ying, “Kham to top” (A retort), To top patthakatha
phutthathat phikkhu, pp. 203 - 225.
“Rai phra nam - nam phu borichak sang phuttha sathan chiang mai” (The list of donor
names for the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 203 -
234.
“Ramluk khun khru thammathat phanit, phu chak pai” (A remembrance of the teacher,
Thammathat Phanit, who has left [the world]), Phutthasasana, Vol. 68 No. 2 (May,
June, July 2000), p. 103.
Ranchuan Inthrakamhaeng, Suan mok thammai? Thammai suan mok? (Why Suan
Mokkh? Suan Mokkh, why?) (Bangkok: Attamayo, 1991).
Ratchathamnithet, Phra, “Khwam-nuk chua khana” (A thought in a moment),
Mahawitthayalai, Vol. 10 No. 6 (1932), pp.813 - 819.
Ratchathamnithet, Phra (Rabaep Chittayano), Phaen thamlai phra phutthasasana (The
plot to destroy Buddhism) (Bangkok: Sun songsoem phra phutthasasana haeng
phrathet thai, 1994).
100 [Roi] pi anus on amonritthamrong (100 years’ anniversary of Amonritthamrong)
(Khana luk lan phim pen thi raluk nai ngan tham bun chalong khrop rop 100 pi wan
khlai wan koet phraya amonritthamrong (phrom na thalang), 28 February 1993)
(The group of children and grandchildren publish to commemorate on the occasion
of the merit making ceremony approaching 100 years since his birthday).
“Ruang cak bot sonthana kap ‘phutthathat phikkhu’ wa duai phutthasasana kap
sangkhom thai” (Stories from a conversation with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu talking
about Buddhism and Thai society; Chatthip Nartsupha’s interview with
Buddhadasa), Lok nangsu (Book world), Vol. 39 No. 11 (August 1980), pp. 50 -
64.
Rudi Roengchai (pseud. Kanya Lilalai), Yot nung nai krasae than (A drop of water in
the stream) (Bangkok: Samnakphim ming mit, 1996).
Sakdina Chatrakun na Ayutthaya, Chiwit, naewkhit lae kantosu khong “narin klung ” ru
329
 narin phasit: khon khwang lok (Life, thought and struggle of “Narin Klung” or
Narin Phasit: a person who blocked the world) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Matichon,
1993).
Samak Burawat, “Khun kha thang sukkhaphap khong wipatsana kammathan” (Health
advantages of vipassani meditation), Wipatsanasan, Vol. 2 No. 5 (September 1956)-
Vol. 2 No. 6 (November 1956).
....... , “Nung duan nai wipatsana” (A month of vipassanä meditation), Wipatsanasan, Vol.
2 No. 1 (January 1956).
....... , Panya wiwat phak 1, 2 (The evolution of human intellect Part 1, 2) (Bangkok:
Phrae phitthaya, second edition 1982).
----- , Phutthapratchaya athibai duai witthayasat (Buddhist philosophy explained by
science) (Bangkok: Rongphim song tham, 1937).
----- , “Ruang phratchaya wa duai kan-plian-plaeng” (About the philosophies of
dynamism), Pkutthasasana (Special issue for the tenth anniversary, 1943), pp. 112
-120.
----- , “Suan mokkhaphalaram”, Ha sip pi suan mok: phak nung, pp. 1156 - 1165.
----- , “Thatsana thang pratchaya lang khao phra kammathan laeo” (A view on
philosophy after experiencing meditation), Wipatsanasan, Voi. 3 No. 4 (July 1957).
----- , see also Kaptan Samut.
Samanen thai nai saranat (pseud. Karuna Kusalasai), “Chotmai chak samanen thai nai
india” (A letter from a Thai novice in India), Pkutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 4 (February
1936), pp. 711-718.
----- , “Horyoyi - pathom phuttha wihan khong yipun” (Horyoji - the first temple of
Japan), Pkutthasasana, Vol. 7 No. 2 (August 1939), pp. 130 - 138.
----- , “Kan-phoeiphrae phutthasasana” (Propagation of Buddhism), Pkutthasasana, Vol.
10 No. 1 (February 1942), pp. 93 - 94.
....... , “Khao di thung phuttha mamaka sayam” (Good news for Thai Buddhists),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 4 No. 3 (November 1936), p. 336.
....... , “Khao kan-khluang-wai khong phra phutthasasana nai india” (News about
Buddhist movements in India), Phutthasasana, Vol. 5 No. 1 (May 1937), pp. 122 -
126.
, “Mahatma nichiren”, Thammachaksu, Vol. 27 No. 10 (July 1939), pp. 935 - 943.
330
......., “Mahatma nichiren” [Continued from the previous issue], Thammachaksu, Vol.
27 No. 11 (August 1939), pp. 1035 - 1042.
----- , “Nam thiao namasakan sathan thi saksit nai india” (Visiting holy places in India),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 8 No. 3 - 4 (November 1940), pp. 183 - 190.
......., “Ngan chalong mulakan kutti wihan nai prathet india” (A celebration in India for
the foundation of a vihäm where there used to be a kuti [monk’s hut] used by the
Buddha), Phutthasasana, Vol. 4 No. 1 (May 1936), pp. 59 - 64.
......., “Phonsawadan khong phra wihan phutthakhaya” (History of the Bodh Gaya
Temple), Phutthasasana, Vol. 6 No. 3 (November 1938), pp. 195 - 202.
....... , “Phra maha wihan phutthakhaya” (A vihära in Bodh Gaya), Phutthasasana, Vol. 5
No. 2 (August 1937), pp. 194 - 203.
- ..., “Phra phutthasasana nai india patchuban” (Buddhism in present day India),
Thammachaksu, Vol. 28 No. 1 (October 1939), pp. 39 - 51.
----- , “Phra phutthasasana sun hai pai chak india yang rai?” (How did India lose
Buddhism?), Thammachaksu, Vol. 27 No. 7 (April 1939), pp. 652 - 663.
----- , “Phra phutthasasana sun hai pai chak india yang rai?” [Continued from the
previous issue], Thammachaksu, Vol. 27 No. 8 (May 1939), pp. 748 - 758.
....... , “Phutthasasana nai prathet yipun” (Buddhism in Japan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 5
No. 4 (February 1938), pp. 341 - 346;
----- , “Wanna sut nai india” (Untouchables in India), Phutthasasana, Vol. 6 No. 1 (May
1938), pp. 41 - 48.
Sanya Thammasak (Sanya Dhammasakdi), “Kamnoet phuttha sathan chiang mai” (The
birth of the Phuttha Sathan Chiang Mai), Khana kammakan klang chat tang phuttha
sathan chiang mai (ed.), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 11 - 17.
----- , “Kham ramluk” (A rememberance),/l/i wscw: phraya lapphlithammaprakhan.
----- , Nathi khong phutthasamakhom (The duty of the Buddhist Association) (Bangkok:
Phutthasamakhom haeng prathet thai, 1961).
----- , “Phuttha-tham kap chiwit kan-ngan” (Buddha dhamma and a life of work), Pun,
Arai thuk, arai phit, pp. 163 - 169.
....... , “Phuttha sathan khu arai?” (What is the Phuttha Sathan?), Phuttha sathan chiang
mai, pp. 50 - 59.
- ..., “Prawat kan-kotang, phonngan, lae khwam-pen-ma nai 35 pi khong
331
 Phutthasamakhom haeng prathet thai nai phra boromarachupatham” (The history of
the establishment, works, and transitions in the thirty-five years of the Buddhist
Association of Thailand under Royal Patronage), Kham thalaeng kitchakan nai rop
pi phutthasakkarat 2533 khong Phutthasamakhom ..., pp. 5 - 30.
Satcha Wimuttinan (edited from a public lecture of Phra Phothirak), Panha sangkhom
thi kae mai dai phro kansuksa phutthasasana phit phlat (Social problems that
cannot be solved because of wrong education in Buddhism) (Bangkok: Rongphim
mulanithi thamma santi, 1985).
Sathianphong Punyawanno, Phra Maha, “Than pridi sang wat thai nai pari” (Pridi builds
a Thai temple in Paris), Chut suan thuang (The centre of gravity) (Bangkok: Hang
hun suan chamkat, 1972), pp. 125 - 133.
Sawai Kaewsom, “Krai? Khu phu-ko-kanrai” (Who is a terrorist?), Kaptan Samut,
Phutthitphachoen na kap kommiunit, pp. 81 - 94.
—— , Tai koet, tai sun, panha lok taek ru? (Reincarnation, or extinction after death: is it
a problem that divides the world?) (1991).
Sawami Satthayanantha Buri (Swami Satyananda Puri), “Kala haeng sasana” (Time in
religion), Thammachaksu, Vol. 27 No. 10 (July 1942), pp. 879 - 884.
....... , “Khwam-kao-na haeng sasana” (Progress in religion), Thammachaksu, Vol. 26
No. 11 (August 1941), pp. 1184- 1188.
----- , Mahatama khanthi: Phu patthiwat india (Mahatma Gandhi: India’s revolutionary)
(Bangkok: Dharmashrama, 1938).
----- , “Ruang winyan” (About vinnnäna), Thammachaksu, Vol. 26 No. 8 (May 1941), pp.
890 - 902.
Sawok, To phra? anan senakhan lae khana ruang khamson diaradhi (Arguing against
Phra? Anan Senakhan and his group on the heretical teaching) (Bangkok:
Rongphim suwannaphum).
Siburapha, Udomtham kap phon ngan chut phutthasasana (The perfect dhamma and
works on Buddhism) (Bangkok: Samnakphim dok ya, 1988, 1993), pp. 255 - 276.
So. Siwarak (Sulak Sivaraksa), “Champen tong mi sasana ru mai” (Is it necessary for us
to have religion or not?), Phutthachak, Vol. 27 No. 2 (February 1973), pp. 22 - 26.
....... , Chuang haeng chiwit (A period of my life) (Bangkok: Samnakphim khlet thai).
----- , Chuang lang haeng chiwit (The later period of [my] life) (Bangkok: Samnakphim
332
 khlet thai, 1997).
....... , “Damrong Chiwit yu phua arai” (For what do we live?), Phutthachak, Vol. 27 No.
3 (March 1973), pp. 1 2-16.
----- , Itthiphon phutthathat to sangkhom (The influence of Buddhadasa on society)
(Bangkok: Khana kammakan sasana phua sangkhom, 1990).
......., Sonthana kap than phutthathat phikkhu (Interview with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu)
(Bangkok: Khana kammakan sasana phua sangkhom, 1993).
......., “Than phutthathat phikkhu” (Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu), Phra di thi na ruchak
(Good monks who are worth knowing) (Bangkok: Samnakphim khlet thai, 1967,
1987), pp. 149 - 176.
Sombat Chanthraong, RaVngan kansuksa ruang chumchon Pathom Asok, kansuksa
Phuttha Yuthopia (A report on the Pathom Asok community, a study of a Buddhist
utopia) (Bangkok: the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, 1988).
“Somdet phra phutthachan (at atsapha maha thera)”, Maha thera prawat, pp. 107 - 161.
“Somdet phra phutthakhosachan yiam lae phak raem nai suan mok” (Somdet Phra
Phutthakhosachan visited and stayed over one night at Suan Mokkh),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 5 No. 2 (August 1937), pp. kho. - cho.
“Song si phra phutthasasana, song phu-sathapana mokkhaphalaiam - khana
thammathan” (Two outstanding contributors to Buddhism, two founders of [Suan]
Mokkh Phalaram - Khana Thammathan) (A leaflet published by the Khana
Thammathan).
Sot Kuramarohit, “Anatta kap atta” (Non-self and self), Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 4
(February 2478/1937), pp. 701 - 710.
----- , “Top a’ngun on ruang kanbuat” (Answering A’ngun On about ordination),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 2 No. 4 (February 2477/1935), pp. 418 - 430.
----- , “Chotmai naksuksa num” (A letter of a student), Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 1-2
(May-August 1936), pp. 469 - 476.
Suchip Punyanuphap, “Khamnam nai kanphim khrang thi raek” (Introduction for the
first printing), Sasana priap thiap (Comparative religions) (Bangkok: Mahamakut
Ratchawitthayalai, 1961, 1997).
Suksanti Chirachariyawet (ed.), 7 rop achan sanya (Seventh twelve-year cycle [i.e.,
eighty-four years] of Achan Sanya) (Bangkok: Mulanithi nitthisat, Mahawitthayalai
333
 thammasat, 1991).

Sulak Sivaraksa, see So. Siwarak; Sulak Siwarak.

Sulak Siwarak (Sulak Sivaraksa), “An nuang ma chak kham samphat than kittiwuttho

phikkhu” (In relation to the interview of Ven. Kittivuddho Bhikkhu), Phutthachak,

Vol. 30 No. 7 (July 1976), pp. 23 - 25.

------, “Khrongkan oprom phra phikkhusu phua songsoem kanphatthana thong thin”

(The project of training monks for promoting rural development), Phutthachak, Vol.

23 No. 7 (July 1969).

........, “Wat kap kan-anurak sinlapakam lae saphap waetlom” (Temples and fine arts and

environment conservation), Phutthachak, Vol. 26 No. 12 (December 1972).

Suphat Sukhonthaphirom, Phuttha pratchaya kap pratchaya maksit (Nonthaburi:

Sathaban witthayasat sangkhom, 1998).

------, “Ramruk thung khun kulap saipradit” (A memory of Kulap Saipradit), Suphot,

Ramluk thung ‘Siburapha’, pp. 1 - 13.

Suphot Dantrakun, “Kham khun ton” (Forward), Phutthasasana kap Khommiunit.

........, Phutthasasana kap khommiunit (Bangkok: Samnakphim sukkhaphap chai, 2000).

------(ed.), Ramluk thung ‘siburapha ’ - kulap saipradit doi phuan ruarn khuk 2495 -
2500 lae saha thammic (Memories of Kulap Saipradit by his friends together in jail

in 1952 - 1957 and his friends in the dhamma) (Nonthaburi: Samnak phim santi

tham, 1985).
Sutcharit Satchawichan, “Phuttha pratchaya nai thatsana ‘nakhon that”’ (Buddhist

philosophy in the view of ‘City slave’), Aksonsatphichan, Vol. 3 No. 11 - 12 (April

- May 1976), pp. 45 - 59.

Suwanna Sathanan (Suwanna Satha-Anand), Pratchaya phutthathat kap mahayan tham

(Buddhadasa’s philosophy and Mahäyäna dhamma) (Bangkok: Khrongkan phoei

phrae phon ngan wichai chulalongkon mahawitthayalai, 1993).

Tai di kwa yu ru (Is it better to die rather than to live?) (Samutprakan: Ongkan funfu

phutthasasana, 1964).

“Thalaengkan” (Announcement), Thammachaksu, Vol. 27 No. 4 (January 1942).

“Thalaengkan” (Announcement), Pacharayasan, Vol. 5 No. 17 (March - April 1976).

“Thalaengkan buang ton” (Announcement in the beginning), Thammachaksu, Vol. 23

No. 4 (January 2480/1937).

334
“Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan” (An announcement from the Khana
Thammathan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 1 (May 1933), pp. 6 - 17.
“Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan” (An announcement from the Khana
Thammathan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 2 (August 1933), pp. 54 - 58.
“Thalaengkan khong khana thammathan” (An announcement from the Khana
Thammathan), Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 1 - 2 (May - August 1935), pp. 636 -
641.
“Thalaengkan khana thammathan” (An announcement from the Khana Thammathan),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 3 No. 4 (February 1936/2478), pp. 745 - 748.
“Thalaengkan mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet” (An announcement of the
Foundation for the Sublime Life Mission), Thalaengkan trasan mulanithi phoei
phrae chiwit prasoet (pho. cho. po.) chabap pho. so. 2522, pp. 1 - 12.
Thalaengkan trasan mulanithi phoei phrae chiwit prasoet (pho. cho. po.) chabap pho.
so. 2522 (An announcement document of the Foundation for the Sublime Life
Mission, 1979 edition).
Thammabannakan nai ngan phra ratcha than phoeng sop phraya pharotratchasuphit-
thammaphiwitthepsuphabodi (choi hemachan) (A writing on the dhamma at the
cremation of Phraya Pharotratchasuphit (Choi Hemachan)) (1970).
Thammadilok, Phra (Chan Kusalo) (ed.), Nam chom wat chedi luang: chabap somphot
600 pi phra that chedi luang (A guide to Wat Chedi Luang: the 600th anniversary of
the Grand Pagoda).
Thammakriat Kan’ari, “Samphat sanya thammasak” (Interview with Sanya
Dhammasakdi), Matichon sut sapda (Weekly Matichon), Vol. 8 No. 403 (22 May
1988), pp. 1 8 -2 0 .
Thammakosachan, Phra (Panyanantha Phikkhu), Phutthathat khu khrai, than tham arai
(Who was Buddhadasa? What did he do?) (Bangkok: Mulanithi phra
dulayaphaksuwaman-chaluai-thiphawan patthamassathan, 1998).
Thammaphinanthanakan nai ngan chapanakit sop: Chao Chun Sirorot (A cremation
volume for Chao Chun Sirorot) (1995).
Thammapidok, Phra (Po. O. Payuttho), Photchananukrom phutthasat chabap pramuan
tham (Dictionary of Buddhist studies: edition for explanation of dhamma terms)
(Bangkok: Mahachulalongkon ratchawitthayalai, 1995).
335
----- , Photchananukrom phutthasat chabap pramuan sap (Dictionary of Buddhist
studies: edition for glossary of dhamma terms) (Bangkok: Mahachulalongkon
ratchawitthayalai, 1995).
Thammaratchanuwat, Phra, “Ruang kiao duai Phuttha Sathan Chiangm Mai”, Phuttha
sathan chiang mai, pp. 18 - 27.
Thammathan khong khun mae siri: thi raluk nuang nai wara charoen chansa khrop 6
rop (72 pi) (Khun Mae Siri’s gift of the dhamma: commemoration for her sixth
twelve year cycle (seventy-two years old)) (22 August 1988).
Thammathat, “Samrap naksuksa num”, Phutthasasana, Vol. 1 No. 2 (August 1933), pp.
3 4 -4 1 .
Thammathiraratmahamuni, Phra, Phet nai duang chai (A jewel in the mind) (Bangkok:
Samnak ngan klang kong kan wipatsana thura, 1996).
Thang bamphen kuson phua ok chak thuk haeng kan koet: anuson nai kan chapanakit
sop achan naep mahaniranon (The way to make merit in order to exit from the
suffering of births: commemoration at the cremation of Achan Naep Mahaniranon)
(Bangkok: Samakhom sun khonkhwa thang phra phutthasasana, 14 December
1983).
Thianwan, “Rok khong sasana”, Phutthasasana (Buddhism), Vol. 20 (1952), pp. 23 -26.
Thit Nat Han (Thich Nhat Hanh), Patihan haeng kan tun yu samoe (The miracle of
being awake) (translated by Phra Pracha Pasannathammo) (Bangkok: Mulanithi
komon khimthong, 1995).
Thipparinya, Phra, “Ruang rao klao sanoe hai long thot”, Ha sip pi suan mok: phak
nung, pp. 747 - 762.
Thongsup, Phra Maha, “Pathakatha ruang nak tham” (A public lecture on nak tham),
Thammachaksu, vol. 20 No. 3 (December 1934), pp. 259 - 274.
Tongsup Charuwanno, Phra Maha, “Thalaengkan buang ton”, Thammachaksu, Vol. 22
No. 2 (November 1936), pp. ko. - kho.
U Nu, “Kanbanru makphon samai kung phutthakan” (Accomplishing enlightenment
half way through the Buddhist era), Phutthasasana, Vol. 22 No. 1 (February 1954),
pp. 33 - 34.
Ubalikhunupamachan, Phra (Sirichantho Chan), Attanoprawat, thamma banyai lae
khirimannatha sut (Autobiography, Dhamma lecture, and Giri-mandana Sutta)

336
 (Bangkok: Chomrom Phutthasat Ko. Fo. Pho., 1988).
Udom Bunyaprasop, “Kham rap saraphap” (Confession), Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp.
28 - 43.
Ulliana, John, “Sut thai lua khon diaw” (At the end, being left alone), Phutthasasana,
Vol. 16 No. 3 (August 1948).
Wai, “Samnao chomai thung ‘khamhuno’” (The draft of a letter to ‘Khamhuno’), Pun,
Aral thuk, arai phit, pp. 151 - 162.
Wachirayanawong, Somdet phra (the Supreme Patriarch), “Phra owat kham khwan”,
Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 5 - 8 .
Wannasit Waithayasewi, “Kham to top” (A retort), To top patthakatha phutthathat
phikkhu, pp. 250 - 307.
Wanrat, Somdet phra, “Kham khwan”, Phuttha sathan chiang mai, pp. 9 - 10.
Wanrat, Than chao phra khun somdet phra, “Kham klao nai phithi poet mulanithi
aphitham mahathat witthayalai” (A speech at the opening ceremony of Mulanithi
Aphitham Mahathat Witthayalai), Chofa, Vol. 1 No. 1 (October 1965), pp. 5 - 7 .
Watcharaphon, Klum (ed.), Phuttha-tham kam mu diao: ruam botkhwam lae
patthakatha khong than phutthathat phikkhu lae khun pun chongprasoet (A handful
of the Buddha Dhamma: collections of essays and lectures by Ven. Buddhadasa
Bhikkhu and Mr. Pun Chongprasoet) (Bangkok: Klum watcharaphon).
Wira Phaengyang, “Suksa chiwaprawat lae phonngan khong thammathat phanit” (A
study on the life history and works of Thammathat Phanit), M.A. thesis,
Mahawitthayalai sinakharin wirot phak tai, 1996.
Wilat Maniwat, Thamma samrap khon nok wat (The dhamma for the people outside
temples) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Dok Ya, 1995).
Wirot Siriat, “Tai di kwa yu?” (Better to die rather than to live?), Tai di kwa yu ru, pp. 3
- 6.
Wiwat Catithammanit, Kabot santhiphap (Peace [Committee’s] revolt) (Bangkok:
Khrongkan chat phim khop fai, 1996).
Wong Mu Lam (Phutthathat Phikkhu trans.), “Sut khong wei lang” (Sutra of Wei Lang),
Phutthasasana, Vol. 15 No. 2 (May 1947), pp. 96 —123.
Wut Suwannarak (A cremation volume for Wut Suwannnarak, 1 March 1998).

337
Buddhist journals consulted
The British Buddhist, Vol. 4 No. 1 (October 1929) - Vol. 8 Conference and Farewell
Number (1934) [Collections in the main library and the subsidiary library of the
Faculty of Arts, the University of Kyoto].
Buddhist Annual of Ceylon, Vol. 1 No. 1 (1920) - Vol. 4 No. 2 (1932) [University of
Kyoto].
The Maha Bodhi, Vol. 39 No. 1 (January 1931) - Vol. 41 No. 12 (December 1933)
[University of Kyoto].
The Young East, Vol. 1 No. 3 (August 1925) - Vol. 10 No. 2 (1942) [University of
Kyoto].
Chao Phut (Buddhists), Vol. 1 No. 1 (May 1952) - Vol. 26 No. 6 (April - May 1973)
[National Library of Thailand; the library at Wat Umong; and supplemented by
some issues purchased in second hand bookshops].
Mahawitthayalai (University), Vol. 2 No. 1 (1924) - Vol. 17 No. 3 (1939) [National
Library of Thailand].
Phutthachak (Buddhist realm), Vol. 3 No. 1 (January 1949) - Vol. 31 No. 12 (December
1973) [National Library of Thailand].
Phutthasasana (Buddhism), Vol. 1 No. 1 (May 1933) - Vol. 68 No. 3 (August,
September, November 2000) [National Library of Thailand; the library at Suan
Mokkh; the library at Wat Umong; and supplemented by some issues purchased in
bookshops and second hand bookshops].
Phuttha-tham (Buddha dhamma), Vol. 1 No. 1 (January 1942) - Vol. 25 No. 11
(November 1972) [National Library of Thailand; and supplemented by some issues
purchased in second hand bookshops].
Suksa Thammada (Ordinary education), Vol. 2 (1920) to Vol. 6 (1924) [National Library
of Thailand].
Thammachaksu (Eye of the dhamma), Vol. 19 No. 1 (October 1933) - Vol. 62 No. 4
(Mahapawarana 1973) [National Library of Thailand].
Wipatsanasan (Journal of vipassana), Vol. 2 No. 1 (January 1956) — Vol. 23 No. 6
(November 1973) [National Library of Thailand].

Non-Thai language materials (including English, French, Japanese, and Pali)

338
Akin Rabibhadana, “Clientship and class structure in the early Bangkok period”, G.
William Skinner and A. Thomas Kirsch (eds.), in Change and persistence in Thai
society: essays in honor of Lauriston Sharp (Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press, 1975), pp. 93 - 123.
Anderson, Benedict, The spectre of comparison: nationalism, Southeast Asia and the
world (London: Verso, 1998).
Apinya Fuengfusakul, “Empire of crystal and utopian commune: two types of
contemporary Theravada reform in Thailand”, Sojourn, Vol. 8 No. 1 (February
1993), pp. 153 - 183.
Aung-Thwin, Michael, Pagan: the origins of modern Burma (Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1985).
Bareau, Andre, review of Une hermeneutique houddhique contemporaine de Thailande:
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, by Louis Gabaude, Revue de Thistoire de religions, Vol.
CCIX, No. 1 (Janvier - Mars 1992), pp. 92 - 94.
Barme, Scot (trans. & ed.), Kulap in Oz: a Thai view of Australian life and society in the
late 1940s (Clayton: Monash Asia Institute, 1995).
Batson, B. A., “Kulap Saipradit: The war of life”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 69,
Parts 1 and 2 (January - July 1981), pp. 5 8 -7 3 .
Bottomore, Tom, Harris, Laurence, Kieman, V. G., and Miliband, Ralph (eds.), A
dictionary of Marxist thought. Second edition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).
Bhaskar, Roy, “Materialism”, in Bottomore, Harris, Kieman and Miliband (eds.), A
dictionary of Marxist thought, pp. 369 - 373.
Bochenski, J. M., “Marxism-Leninism and religion”, in Bociurkiw and Strong (eds.),
Religion and atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, pp. 1 - 17.
Bociurkiw, Bohdan R. and Strong, John W. (eds.), Religion and atheism in the U.S.S.R.
and Eastern Europe (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1975).
Bowie, Katharine A., Rituals of national loyalty: an anthropology of the state and the
village scout movement in Thailand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
Buddhadasa, Bhikkhu, Dhammic Socialism (Bangkok: Inter-Religious Commission for
Development, 1986), trans. by Donald K. Swearer..
Bunnag, Jane, Buddhist monk, Buddhist layman: a study of urban monastic organization
in central Thailand (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
339
Cabezön, Jose Ignacio, “Buddhist studies as a discipline and the role of theory ”, Journal
of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2 (1995), pp. 231
-268.
Chak Wing David Tsui, China and the communist armed struggle in Thailand (London:
Sangam Books Limited, 1995).
Chalmers, Robert (ed.), The Majjhima-nikäya vol. Ill (London: The Pali Text Society,
1960).
Chatthip Nartsupha, “The ideology of holy men revolts in North East Thailand”, in
Turton and Tanabe (eds.), History and peasant consciousness in South East Asia,
p p .I ll - 134.
----- , “The Community Culture School of Thought”, in Manas and Turton (eds.), Thai
constructions of knowledge, pp. 118-141.S
Cox, Collett, “Buddhism, Äbhidharmika schools o f ’, in Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of philosophy (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 53 -58.
Das, D. N., (ed.), Speeches and Writings of Swami Satyananda (Bangkok: Thai-Bharata
Cultural Lodge, 1940).
Dharma-vijava (Triumph of righteousness or the revolt in the temple) (Colombo: Sinha
Publications, 1953).
“Democratic Prince”, The British Buddhist, Vol. 4 No. 8-9 (May-June 1930).
“Democratic Siam”, The Maha-Bodhi, Vol. 40 No. 8 (August 1932), pp. 390 - 391.
Deshpande, Madhav M., “Introduction”, in Deshpande, Madhav M. (ed.),
Milindapanhä-atthakathä by Thaton Mingun Zatawun Sayadaw alias U Narada
Mahathera (transcribed and edited) (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist
Studies of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies, 1999), pp. 1 -
23.
Dongieux, Henri, “Institutionalization and change at Suan Mokkhabalaram: rationalist
Buddhism and the micro-social context”, M.A. dissertation, Universiteit van
Amsterdam, 1999.
Feer, M. Leon (ed.), Samyutta-nikäya Part II Nidäna-vagga and Part V Mahä-vagga (London:
The Pali Text Socity, 1960).
Fineman, Daniel, A special relationship: the United States and military government in
Thailand, 1947 - 1958 (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997).
340
“From Siam”, The British Buddhist, Vol. 8 No. 2 (January-March 1934), pp. 114 - 115.
Gabaude, Louis, Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande:
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Paris: Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1988).
....... , “Thai society and Buddhadasa: structural difficulties”, in Sulak Sivaraksa et. al.
(eds.), Radical conservatism, pp. 211 - 229.
Gawin Chutima, The rise and fall of the Communist Party of Thailand (1973 - 1987),
University of Kent at Canterbury, Centre of South-East Asian Studies, Occasional
Paper No. 12 (1990).
Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind, “Anagarika Dharmapala: toward modernity through
tradition in Ceylon”, in Contributions to Asian studies, Vol. 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1973), pp. 3 0 -3 9 .
Gombrich, Richard, and Obeyesekere, Gananath, Buddhism transformed: religious
change in Sri Lanka (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).
Gorkom, Nina van, Abhidhamma in daily life (London: Triple Gem Press, 1969, 1997).
Guruge, Ananda (ed.), Return to righteousness: a collection of speeches, essays and
letters of Anagarika Dharmapala (Ceylon: Government Press, 1965).
Habermas, Jürgen, The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society, trans. Thomas Burger (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1989).
Hagiwara, Yoshiyuki, and Murashima, Eiji (eds.), Asean shokhoku no seiji taisei (The
political regime in the ASEAN states) (Tokyo: Ajia keizai kenkyu sho, 1987).
Heikkilä-Hom, Maija-Leena, Buddhism with open eyes: belief and practice of Santi
Asoke (Bangkok: Fah Apai Co., Ltd., 1997).
Hinüber, O. von, “Pali manuscripts of canonical texts from North Thailand - a
preliminary report”, Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 71 (1983), pp. 75 - 88.
Hong Lysa, “Warasan setthasat kanmuang critical scholarship in post-1976 Thailand”,
in Manas and Turton (eds.), Thai constructions of knowledge, pp. 99 - 117.
Homer, I. B., (trans.), The collection of the middle length sayings (Majjhima-nikäya) vol.
Ill (London: The Pali Text Society, 1959).
Ileto, Reynaldo Clemena, Pasyon and revolution: popular movements in the Philippines,
1840 -1 9 1 0 (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1979).
Ishii, Yoneo, “Church and state in Thailand”, Asian survey, Vol. VIII, No. 10 (1968), pp.
341
 864-871.
....... , Jozabu Bukkyo no seiji shakai gaku (Political sociology of Theravada Buddhism)
(Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1975).
....... , (translated by Peter Hawkes), Sangha, state, and society: Thai Buddhism in
history (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986).
----- , “A note on Buddhistic millenarian revolts in Northeastern Siam”, Journal of
Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 121 - 126.
Jackson, Peter A., Buddhadasa: a Buddhist thinker for the modern world (Bangkok:
The Siam Society under Royal Patronage, 1988).
....... , Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict: the political functions of urban Thai
Buddhism (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989).
----- , “The Hupphaasawan movement: Millenarian Buddhism among the Thai political
elite”, Sojourn, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1988), pp. 134 - 170.
----- , “The enchanting spirit of Thai capitalism: the cult of Laung Phor Khoon and the
post-modernization of Thai Buddhism”, South East Asian research, Vol. 7 No. 1
(March 1999), pp. 5 - 60.
----- , “Royal spirits, Chinese gods, and magic monks: Thailand’s boom time religious
prosperity”, South East Asia research, Vol. 7, No. 3 (November 1999), pp. 245 -
320.
Johansson, Rune E. A., The psychology of nirvana (London: George Allen and Unwin
Lid, 1969).
Kamala Tiyavanich, Forest recollections: wandering monks in twentieth-century
Thailand (Chiangmai: Silkworm Books, 1997).
Kasian Tejapira, “Commodifying Marxism: the formation of modem Thai radical
culture, 1927 - 1958” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1992).
Keyes, Charles F., “Millennialism, Theravada Buddhism, and Thai society”, in Journal
of Asian Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (February 1977), pp. 238 - 302.
....... , “Political crisis and militant Buddhism in contemporary Thailand”, in Bardwell L.
Smith (ed.), Religion and legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, pp.
147 - 164.
....... , “Communist revolution and the Buddhist past in Cambodia”, in Keyes, Kendall,
and Hardacre (eds.), Asian visions of authority, pp. 43 - 73.
342
Keyes, Charles E, Kendall, Laurel, and Hardacre, Helen (eds.), Asian visions of
authority: religion and the modern states of East and Southeast Asia (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1994).
King, Sallie B., “Thich Nhat Hanh and the United Buddhist Church: nondualism in
action”, in Queen and King (eds.), Engaged Buddhism, pp. 321 - 363.
Kirsch, A. Thomas, “Modernizing implications of 19th century reforms in the Thai
Sangha”, Contributions to Asian Studies, Vol. VIII (1975), pp. 8 - 23.
Koizumi, Junko, “Ayutaya jidai ni okeru yoeki seido no ‘sozo’” (The construction of
corvee labour system in the Ayutthaya period), Toyo Bunka Kenkyusho kiyo (The
journal of the Institute of Eastern Cultures), Vol. 137 (March 1999), pp. 91 - 132.
Lamotte, Etienne, “Les dix-huit vacuites”, Le traite de la grande vertu de sagesse de
Nägärjunn: Mahäprajnäpäramhäsästra: avec une etude sur la Vacuite, Volume IV
(Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, Universite de Louvain, 1974), pp. 1995 - 2013.
Landon, K. R, Thailand in transition: a brief survey of cultural trends in the five years
since the Revolution of 1932 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939).
Leach, E. R. (ed.), Dialectic in practical religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1968).
Leach, E. R., “Introduction”, in E. R. Leach (ed.), Dialectic in practical religion, pp. 1 -
6.

Lerki, George Jan, Origins of Trotskyism in Ceylon: a documentary history of the Lanka
Sama Samaja Party, 1935 - 1942 (Stanford: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution,
and Peace, 1968).
Leuke, Gautama Buddha and Karl Marx: a critical and comparative study of their
system of philosophy (Colombo: Vijaya Publishing House, 1943).
Loone, Eero, “Communism”, in Outhwaite and Bottomore (eds.), The Blackwell
dictionary of twentieth-century social thought, pp. 96 - 98.
Maen Pongudom, “Apologetic and missionary proclamation: exemplified by American
Presbyterian missionaries to Thailand (1828 - 1978), early Church apologists:
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the Venerable Buddhadasa
Bhikkhu, a Thai Buddhist monk-apologist”, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of
Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 1979.
Manas Chitakasem and Turton, Andrew (eds.), Thai constructions of knowledge
343
 (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1991).
Marx, Karl, “Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law. Introduction”, in
Marx and Engels, Collected works volume 3, pp. 174 - 187.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederich, Collected works volume 3: Marx and Engels 1843 -
44 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975).
McCargo, Duncan, Chamlong Srimuang and the new Thai politics (London: C. Hurst &
Co., 1997).
Ministry of Public Instruction, Report on the work of the Ministry of Public Instruction
of the Siamese Government B.E. 2469 (1926-27) (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press,
1931).
Morell, David and Samudavanija, Chai-anan, Political conflict in Thailand: reform,
reaction, revolution (Cambridge: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, Inc.,
1981).
Morris, Richard and Warder, A. K. (ed.), Anguttara-nikäya Part I and Part III (London:
The Pali Text Society, 1961).
Mulder, Niels, review of Une hermeneutique bouddhique contemporaine de Thailande:
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, by Louis Gabaude, Bijdragen tot de taal-land-en
volkenkunde, Vol. 150, No. 1 (1994), pp. 234 —235.
Murashima, Eiji, “Tai ni okeru seiji taisei no shuki teki tenkan: gikai sei minshushugi to
gunbu no seiji kainyu” (The periodical cycle of the political regime in Thailand:
Parliamentary democracy and military intervention in politics), in Hagiwara and
Murashima (eds.), Asean shokhoku no seiji taisei, pp. 135 - 190.
----- , Kanmuang chin sayam: Kan khluan wai thang kanmuang khong chaw chin phon
thale nai prathet thai kho. so. 1924 - 1941 (Politics of the Chinese in Siam: the
political activities of overseas Chinese in Thailand in 1924 - 1941) (Bangkok: Sun
chin suksa, sathaban esia suksa, chulalongkon mahawitthayalai, 1996).
----- , “1940 nen dai ni okeru tai no shokuminchi taisei dakkyakuka to indoshina no
dokuritsu undo: tai futsuin funso kara reisen no kaishi made” (Thailand’s
‘Decolonisation’ of its system and the Indochinese independence movement in the
1940s: from the Thai-French Indochina conflict to the beginning of the Cold War),
in Shiraishi, Murashima et.al., Betonamu to tai, pp. 110 - 219.
----- , “Tai kindai kokka no keisei” (The formation of the modem state of Thailand), in
344
 Yoneo Ishii and Yumio Sakurai (eds.), Tonan Ajia shi I - Tairiku-bu (History of
Southeast Asia Vol. I - Mainland) (Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1999), pp. 397
-439.
Nänamoli, Bhikkhu (trans.), The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, translation
edited and revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995).
“New Siamese Constitution: highest power belongs to people”, The Maha-Bodhi, Vol.
40 No. 9 (September 1932), pp. 415 - 422.
Norman, K. R., Pali literature including the canonical literature in Prakrit and Sanskrit
of all the Hinayana Schools of Buddhism (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983).
....... , “Pali philology and the study of Buddhism”, Collected papers volume TV
(Oxford: The Pali Text Society), pp. 8 0 -9 1 .
----- , “The present state of Pali studies, and future tasks”, Collected papers; volume VI
(Oxford: The Pali Text Society), pp. 68 - 69.
O’Connor, Richard A., “Interpreting Thai religious change: temples, Sangha reform and
social change”, Journal of Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 24 No. 2 (September 1993),
pp. 330 - 339.
Olson, Grant A., “A person-centered ethnography of Thai Buddhism: the life of Phra
Rajavaramuni (Prayudh Payutto)”, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1989.
----- , “Cries over spilled holy water: ‘complex’ responses to a traditional Thai religious
practice”, Journal of Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March 1991), pp. 75 -
85.
----- , “From Buddhadasa Bhikkhu to Phra Debvedi: two monks of wisdom”, in Sulak
Sivaraksa et. al. (eds.), Radical conservatism, pp. 251 - 267.
Outhwaite, William and Bottomore, Tom (eds.), The Blackwell dictionary of
twentieth-century social thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).
Pasuk Phongpaichit, Civilising the state: state, civil society and politics in Thailnad
(Amsterdam: Centre for Asian Studies, 1999).
Pasuk Phongpaichit and Baker, Chris, Thailand: economy and politics (Kuala Lumpur:
Oxford University Press, 1995).
Patarapom Sirikanchana, “The concept of dhamma in Thai Buddhism: a study in the
thought of Vajiranana and Buddhadasa”, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of
Pennsylvania, 1985.
345
......., “Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and the Buddhist hermeneutics”, in Sulak Sivaraksa et. al.
(eds.), Radical conservatism, pp. 245 - 250.
Peerachat Saccavadit, “Citwaang as an adequate aim of education”, Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1979.
Penth, Hans, History of Wat Umong (Chiang Mai: Buddhanikom), undated.
.......,A brief history ofLan Na: civilizations of North Thailand (Chiang Mai: Silkworm
Books, 1994).
Phaisan Visalo, Phra, “The forest monastery and its relevance to modem Thai society”,
Sulak Sivaraksa et. al. (eds.), Radical conservatism, pp. 288 - 300.
Queen, Christopher S. and King, Sallie B. (eds.), Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist
liberation movements in Asia (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).
Redfield, Robert, Peasant society and culture (Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1956).
Reynolds, Craig J. (ed.), Autobiography: the life of Prince-Patriarch Vajirahana of
Siam, 1860- 1921 (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1979).
----- , “The Buddhist monkhood in nineteenth century Thailand”, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1973.
......., “The case of K. S. R. Kulap: a challenge to royal historical writing in late
nineteenth century Thailand”, The Journal of the Siam Society, vol. 61 Part 2 (July
1973), pp. 63 - 90.
----- (trans.), City Slave, “Phi tong luang/ The Spirit of Yellow Leaves” (For the Echols
Collection, Olin Library, Cornell University, 1980).
----- , Thai radical discourse: the real face of Thai feudalism today (Ithaca: Cornell
Southeast Asia Program, 1987).
Reynolds, Craig and Hong Lysa, “Marxism in Thai historical studies”, Journal of Asian
studies, Vol. XLIII, No. 1 (November 1983), pp. 77 - 104.
Reynolds, Frank E., “Legitimation and rebellion: Thailand’s civic religion and the
student uprising of October, 1973”, in Bardwell L. Smith (ed.), Religion and
legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, pp. 134 - 146.
Rhys Davids, T. W., and Stede, William (eds.), Pali-English dictionary (Oxford: The
Pali Text Society).
Saddhatissa, Hammalawa, “Introduction: the Abhidhammatthasangaha” , Hammalawa
346
 Saddhatissa (ed.), The Abhidhammatthasangaha o f Bhadantäcariya Anurudda and. the

Abhidhammatthavibhävini-tikä o f Bhandantäcariya Sumangalasämi (Oxford: The Pali Text

Society, 1989), pp. xiii - xxiii.

Santikaro Bhikkhu, “Four noble truths of Dhammic Socialism”, in Watts, Senauke, and

Santikaro (eds.), Entering the realm o f reality, pp. 89 - 161.

........, “The future of Suan Mokkh”, Sulak Sivaraksa et. al. (eds.), Radical conservatism,

pp. 268 - 287.

Sarkisyanz, E., Buddhist background o f Burmese revolution (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,

1965).

------, “Buddhist Background of Burmese Socialism”, in Smith (ed.), Religion and

legitimation o f power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, pp. 87 - 99.

Satyananda Puri, Swami, “The Origin of Buddhist Thoughts”, Das (ed.), Speeches and
writings o f Swami Satyananda, pp. 1 - 38.

Seri Phongphit, “The problem of religious language: a study of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

and Ian Ramsey as models for a mutual understanding of Buddhism and

Christianity”, Inaugural-dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der

Hochschule für Philosophie/ Philosophische Fakultät SJ, München, 1978.

------, Religion in a changing society: Buddhism, reform and the role o f monks in

community development in Thailand (Hong Kong: Arena, 1988).

Shiraishi, Masaya, Murashima, Eiji, et.al., Betonamu to tai (Vietnam and Thailand)

(Tokyo: Daimeido, 1998).

Siapno, Jacqueline, “Alternative Filipina heroines: contested tropes in leftist feminisms”,

Aihwa Ong and Michael G. Peletz (eds.), Bewitching women, pious men: gender

and body politics in Southeast Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press,

1995).

Smith, Bardwell L., (ed.), Religion and legitimation o f power in Thailand, Laos, and

Burma (Chambersburg, PA: ANIMA Books, 1978).

Smyth, David, “Introduction”, in Siburapha, Behind the painting and other stories

(Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 1 - 44.

Spiro, Melford E., Buddhism and society: a great tradition and its Burmese vicissitude

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970,1982).

Somboon Suksamran, Buddhism and politics in Thailand: a study o f socio-political

347
 change and political activism of the Thai Sangha (Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, 1982).
....... , Political Buddhism in Southeast Asia: the role of the Sangha in the modernization
of Thailand (London: G. Hurst, 1977).
Stuart-Fox, Martin, Buddhist kingdom, Marxist state: the making of modern Laos
(Bangkok: White Lotus, 1996).
Suchira Payulpitack, “Buddhadasa’s movement: an analysis of its origins, development,
and social impact”, Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der
Sozialwissenschaften, Universität Bielefeld, 1991.
----- , “Changing provinces of concern: a case-study of the social impact of the
Buddhadasa movement”, Sojourn, Vol. 7 No. 1 (February 1992), pp. 39 - 68.
Sulak Sivaraksa, Loyalty demands dissent: autobiography of an engaged Buddhist
(Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1998).
Sulak Sivaraksa et. al. (eds.), Radical conservatism: Buddhism in the contemporary
world (Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development, and
International Network of Engaged Buddhists, 1990).
Suwanna Satha-Anand, review of Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict: the political
functions of urban Thai Buddhism, by Peter A. Jackson, Crossroads, vol. 5, No. 1
(1990), pp. 105 - 108.
Swearer, Donald K., “Bhikkhu Buddhadasa’s interpretation of the Buddha”, Journal of
the American Academy of Religion, Vol. LXIV, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 313 -
336.
----- , “Buddha, Buddhism and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa”, Sulak Sivaraksa et. al. (eds.),
Radical conservatism, pp. 230 - 244.
----- , “Buddhism, Christianity and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa”, Visakha Puja 2511
(Bangkok: Buddhist Association, 1968), pp. 77 - 90.
----- , Buddhism in transition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970).
----- , Buddhism and society in Southeast Asia (Chambersburg, PA: ANIMA Books,
1981).
....... , “Buddhist virtue, voluntary poverty, and extensive benevolence”, Journal of
religious ethics, Vol. 26 No. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 71 - 103.
....... , “Fundamentalism in Theravada Buddhism”, in Martin E. Marty and R. Scott
348
 Appleby (eds.), Fundamentalisms observed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1991), pp. 628-690.
----- (trans. & ed.), Me and mine: selected essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1989).
----- , “Thai Buddhism: two responses to modernity”, Contributions to Asian studies,
Vol. IV (1973), pp. 79 - 92.
....... (trans. & ed.), Toward the truth (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971).
....... , The Buddhist world of Southeast Asia (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1995).
----- , “Three legacies of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa”, in Sulak Sivaraksa (ed.), The quest for
a just society: the legacy and challenge of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Bangkok:
International Network of Engaged Buddhists, 1994), pp. 1 - 26.
Tambiah, S. J., Buddhism and the spirit cults in North-East Thailand (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1970).
----- , “The ideology of merit and the social correlates of Buddhism in a Thai village”,
in E. R. Leach (ed.), Dialectic in practical religion, pp. 41 - 121.
----- , World conqueror and world renouncer: a study of Buddhism and polity in
Thailand against a historical background (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976).
----- , The Buddhist saints of the forest and the cult of amulets (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984).
Tanabe, Shigeharu, “Ideological practice in peasant rebellions: Siam at the turn of the
twentieth century”, in Turton and Tanabe (eds.), History and peasant consciousness
in South East Asia, pp. 75 -110.
Tannenbaum, Nicola, “Protest, tree ordination, and the changing context of political
ritual”, Ethnology, vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring 2000), pp. 109 - 127.
Tavivat Puntarigvivat, “Bhikkhu Buddhadasa’s Dhammic Socialism in dialogue with
Latin American liberation theology”, Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1994.
Taylor, Jim, “Buddhist revitalization, modernization, and social change in contemporary
Thailand”, Sojourn, Vol. 8 No. 1 (February 1993).
----- , “New Buddhist movements in Thailand: an individualistic revolution, reform and
political dissonance”, Journal of Southeast Asian studies, vol. 21 No. 1 (March
349
 1990), pp. 135 - 154.
----- , Forest monks and the nation-state: an anthropological study in Northeastern
Thailand (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993).
----- , “Social activism and resistance on the Thai frontier: the case of Phra Prajak
Khuttajitto”, Bulletin of concerned Asian scholars, Vol. 25, No. 2 (April - June
1993), pp. 3 - 16.
Terwiel, B. J., Monks and magic: an analysis of religious ceremonies in Central
Thailand (London: Curzon Press, 1979).
Thak Chaloemtiarana, Thailand: the politics of despotic paternalism (Bangkok: Social
Science Association of Thailand, Thai Khadi Institute, Thammasat University,
1979).
Thongchai Winichakul, Siam mapped: a history of the geo-body of a nation (Chiang
Mai: Silkworm Books, 1994).
Turton, Andrew, and Tanabe, Shigeharu (eds.), History and peasant consciousness in
South East Asia (Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 1984).
Vamvaidya Varavam (Wan Waithayakon), M. C., “My Impressions of Swami
Satyananda Puri’s Lecture on the ‘Origin of Buddhistic Thoughts’”,
Mahawitthayalai (University), Vol. 10 No. 5 (1932), pp. 630 —633.
Vella, Walter F., “Thianwan of Siam: a man who fought giants”, in Ronald D. Renard
(ed.), Anuson Walter Vella (Chiang Mai: Walter F. Vella Fund, Phayap University,
1986), pp. 7 8 -9 1 .
Watts, Jonathan, Senauke, Alan, and Santikaro Bhikkhu (eds.), Entering the realm of
reality: towards Dhammic societies (Bangkok: INEB, 1997).
Welch, Holmes, Buddhism under Mao (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1972).
Wilson, Constance M., “The holy man in the history of Thailand and Laos”, Journal of
Southeast Asian studies, Vol. 28, No. 2 (September 1997), pp. 345 - 364.
Wilson, David A., “China, Thailand and the spirit of Bandung (Part I)”, The China
quarterly No. 30 (April - June 1967), pp. 149 - 169.
----- , “China, Thailand and the spirit of Bandung (Part II)”, The China quarterly No. 31
(July - September 1967), pp. 96 - 127.
Wong Mou-lam (trans. & ed.), The sutra of Wei Lang (London: Luzac & Co., 1944).
350
Woodward, F. L., The book o f the kindred sayings (Samyutta-nikäya) or grouped suttas:

part III and part V (Mahä-vagga ) (London: The Pali Text Society, 1965).

Wyatt, David K., Thailand: a short history (Chiangmai: Silkworm books, 1982,1984).

“Yet Another Departure”, The British Buddhist, Vol. 5 No. 1 (October 1930), p. 194.

Yuangrat (Pattanapongse) Wedel, “Modem Thai radical thought: the Siamization of

Marxism and its theoretical problems”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan,

1981.

Yuangrat Wedel, The Thai radicals and the Communist Party: interaction o f ideology

and nationalism in the forest, 1975 - 1980 (Singapore: Maruzen Asia, 1983).

Yuangrat Wedel and Paul Wedel, Radical thought, Thai mind: the development o f

revolutionary ideas in Thailand (Bangkok: ABAC, 1987).

Zack, Stephan J., “Buddhist education under Prince Wachirayan Warorot”, Ph.D.

dissertation, Cornell University, 1977.

Zehner, Edwin, “Reform symbolism of a Thai middle-class sect: the growth and appeal

of the Thammakai movement”, Journal o f Southeast Asians studies, Vol. 21 No. 2

(September 1990), pp. 402 - 426.

351