OPINION

Dharma not drama

Re: "MPs face flak for Buddhism comments", (BP, Aug 19).

It is hoped that Buddhists in Thailand are horrified at the latest political stunt by serial petitioner Srisuwan Janya. This time, he uses Buddhism to fuel his ego. He claims that making honest, albeit unpleasant to some, statements about Buddhism "risked eroding public trust in the religion".

This sounds false. It is the behaviour of monks now being honestly reported that is eroding trust in the local version of Buddhism. Mr Janya also claims the MPs "misrepresented facts and spoke in ways that belittled Buddhist traditions and practices" regarding state-funded overseas trips and the payment of state funds to support monks.

One of the Buddha's core principles is right understanding, which in the Kalama Sutta is linked to questioning received tradition, authority, and dogma. The Buddha's example is one of lifelong questioning in the pursuit of ever more sure wisdom. And so far as I know, nowhere does the Buddha suggest the sangha should ally itself with any state or accept money from it. I know of nothing in the Buddha's teachings that endorses the idea of monks being state officials in any capacity.

Suppose the religion known as Thai Buddhism seeks redemption with the public. In that case, it perhaps needs to liberate itself from state domination by such bodies as the National Office of Buddhism and from financial incentives from the state that come with the expectation that the religion will loyally serve not the Buddha's profound wisdom, but the politicians and political players using it to score political points to further their ego-driven agenda.

Thailand is not a theocracy where heretical ideas are to be suppressed by anti-democratic law that is intrinsically unjust, and, in this case, contrary to the Buddha's teachings. He sought to uncover truths, even when hard and unpleasant, not to nurture comforting myths and superstitions to hide behind.

Or have I completely misunderstood what the Buddha discovered and taught by critically examining received dogma, authority, and tradition?

Generals galore

Re: "Rewarding an army hero", (Opinion, Aug 20).

The excellent opinion by the Post editorial department suggests obeying existing law, which is certainly commendable.

But given that there are already 1,400 generals in the country club, promoting Lt Gen Boonsin Padklang to full general status when he retires (so he can collect some more money) sends the wrong message.

The concept of serving one's country seems undermined by this idea.

What about giving him a medal at an awards ceremony?

US law sets a maximum number of generals. Even at the US maximum (which has not been reached), Thailand has more than twice the number of generals as the United States.

Yet the United States military expenditure is much, much greater than that of Thailand, and its assets are exponentially larger in value.

It is time for the government to enact a military reform law which limits the number of generals to a reasonable number for the first time, and lets the country club management retire, leaving the country with a more efficient and effective military.