Comments on “The King of Siam invents Western Buddhism”

Hi, Greg,

I agree that there’s some uncertainty about this. I’m going to lay out what I’ve learned about it in detail in another post. Sharf isn’t my main source; I do think he sometimes overstates his case. If you still disagree after I go through my sources, you may be able to change my mind.

In the case of Ajahn Mun, people in his lineage do say he invented his vipassana method. His biography, by his student Ajahn Maha Bua, goes into a fair amount of detail about Mun’s inability to find a vipassana teacher, and the way he developed his own method.

Records from the late 1800s / early 1900s are sketchy, so it’s impossible to prove that there was no one meditating. On the other hand, for all the extant vipassana lineages, there is pretty good evidence that they were invented (with reference to scripture) by specific people at that time.

Thanks for the comment. Please do push back if you think I’ve got it wrong, after reading the details later this week.

David

Hi Jayarava, nice to see you here!

I’ll write a little about Dharmapala when I do the detailed history of the reinvention of vipassana. He’s the best-documented case, actually, but less significant than the Thai and Burmese ones because Sri Lankan Buddhism hasn’t had much influence on the Consensus. My main source is Gombrich and Obeyesekere’s Buddhism Transformed. If you know of other good source(s), please do let me know.

Cheers
David

(1) Dharmapala made a big impression in Chicago in 1893 but he didn’t leave behind an organization or lineage. Yes, the Burmese influence (more from Mahasi than Goenka) is probably as great as the Thai influence, though. Maybe I’ll get a clearer picture of this when my reading reaches the 1960s and 70s.

(2) I meant “new in the late 1800s relative to the past few centuries.” That’s well-documented, I think. I don’t know a lot about early Buddhism. Uncharacteristically, I have an ignorant opinion, which is that most of what people think they know about it is probably mythology, not fact. I might be totally wrong about that, though; I just haven’t read much.

(3) The Consensus folks seem to be ambivalent about monasticism. It’s an open question for them, as far as I can tell from the outside. It’s obvious that very few Westerners want to be monks or nuns. Based on that, I think non-monastic ordination systems like the Triratna Order and the ngak’phang lineage are important. About the future, who knows? Maybe in thirty years, Western culture will have changed in some way so that lots of people want to be monastics. Or maybe monasticism will be effectively dead in both Asia and the West. Better not to put all our eggs in one basket, maybe.

(4) I do hugely admire Mongkut. I’m just totally impressed with him. And, everything he did made excellent sense given the circumstances. Later, I will suggest that the Buddhism he constructed is not the Buddhism we need now, because our circumstances are different. He was at the leading edge of modernity, and we’re a little past its trailing edge.

A general point: I don’t seem to hold opinions as strongly as many people. Especially, I don’t tend to judge people as “good” or “bad.” That isn’t because I’m “nice”—I’m not—but because I find complexity everywhere. So in the case of Consensus Buddhism, the problem is not that its leaders are “bad” or “wrong”, or even that it is “bad” or “wrong.” It was a sensible—brilliant, even—response to a particular set of circumstances. But, like everything, it has complex consequences. Some of those are problematic, particularly because circumstances have—once again—changed.

I don’t know of one… The 19/8 statistic comes from Strong Roots, but it doesn’t say which they are. If you find anything, or other readers know of something, a link would be great.

I need to learn more about this—especially because one of the main characters in my Buddhist vampire romance is a monk. Since it is a Tantric Buddhist vampire romance, and Tantra is all about sex, I have been doing a little research.

Excerpts from an old email conversation, offered purely in fun:

Celibacy is the essence of Buddhist renunciation. I don't think Western Buddhists get this at all. If you look at vinaya, it goes like this: Rule #1: No sex. Rule #2: Especially not with women. Rule #3: Definitely no sex at all. Rule #4: Not with sheep, either. Rule #5: Did we mention that you can't have sex? The penalty for violating this is extremely severe. Rule #6: There is no rule #6. 'Cuz we've pretty much covered it. Rule #7: There's some other stuff you shouldn't do, either, but don't sweat it.

And another one:

Due to the fact that I am rather drunk, I feel certain that you want to know all about the rules concerning sex between monks and corpses. Unfortunately, according to one source, this matter is "controversial", so the details are uncertain. It appears that a great deal of intellectual energy and brilliance has been devoted to the subject, due to its pressing importance. There are diverse opinions, with extensive scholarly examinations of scriptural sources and arguments pro and con. A "thullaccaya offense" is one that is sufficiently minor that it's not explicitly mentioned in the central vinaya sutras. According to one source, if "a bhikkhu attempts intercourse with the decomposed mouth, anus, or genitals of a corpse", that is a thullaccaya offense. Another source enumerates a large number of categories of things bhikkhus are not to have sex with. Of course, women are right out; everyone agrees on that. Ditto female animals. But what about female ghosts, demons, and goddesses? Here we enter the realm of controversy. This particular source insists that they are definitely Not OK. Just in case anyone was thinking of finding loopholes, it explicitly enumerates the (many) subcategories of female ghosts, demons, and goddesses. AND the categories of corpses, which are also NOT OK. Specifically, fresh corpses are not OK, partially decomposed corpses are not OK, and mostly-decomposed corpses are not OK. No mention is made of skeletons. It might, therefore, be OK to have sex with a female pelvis, so long as the bhikkhu cleans it thoroughly first. I am sure that someone would argue to the contrary, however, if you raised the point. You may (or may not) also wish to know that a bikkhu commits thullaccaya "by introducing his sex organ in one of the following: the sex organ of a female living being where this is narrower than that of a cat or a chicken; in the eye orifice, the nostrils or the ear of a human being; in the corpse of a being through an opening made with a knife or into a fold; in the nose of the corpse from an elephant, horse, buffalo, cow, etc." Also, "if a bhikkhu eats human flesh, wears the robe of an heretic sect in wood bark, a robe made out of owl feathers or from a cloth made with human hairs, or if he cuts his sexual organ, he commits a thullaccaya." Systematically reading the vinaya is infinitely tedious, but browsing it can be a lot of fun!

Some other entertaining rules:

1. When a bhikkhu is making a skin-eruption covering cloth, it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: four spans – using the Sugata span – in length, two spans in width. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

2. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. (“According to the Commentary, this rule applies regardless of whether the umbrella is open or closed, as long as one’s listeners has his/her hand on it. If, however, the umbrella is on the listener’s lap, resting against his/her shoulder, or if someone else is holding it over the listener’s head, there is no offense in teaching him/her any Dhamma.”)

3. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed.

4. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing leather footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. (“Wearing means any one of three things: placing one’s feet on top of the footwear without inserting the toes; inserting the toes without fastening the footwear; or fastening the footwear with the toes inside.”)

5. When a bhikkhu is building a large dwelling, he may apply two or three layers of facing to plaster the area around the window frame and reinforce the area around the door frame the width of the door opening, while standing where there are no crops to speak of. Should he apply more than that, even if standing where there are no crops to speak of, it is to be confessed.

I imagine all these made good sense in context.

Hi, Erick,

Thanks for the pointer! I have read as much of Johnson’s essay as I could find on the web. (Nearly all of it is available on Google Books.)

As I understand it, Johnson’s point is that “rationality” is a “negotiable” category, and Mongkut’s “rationality” was not exactly that of Western science. Both true; but neither seems to contradict any of what I said. (Johnson did not discuss “modernization”, at least in the portion available on Google.)

Yes, his reforms had limited impact outside the urban elite. His Dhammayuttika order, despite special state privileges, has never been more than a small minority of monks.

But, what I am tracing here is the history of Western Consensus Buddhism. And that was—unarguably, I think—hugely influenced by Dhammayuttika, and the rationalist-scripturalist-Protestant flavor of Mongkut’s Buddhism.

Similarly, in Japan, the New Buddhism of Imakita Kosen and D.T. Suzuki, and the Sanbokyodan School of Yasutani, had limited impact outside Westernized urban centers. But these were almost the sole basis for Zen in the West.

Best wishes,

David

Thanks, vikman1246, these are excellent points, well-stated!

I think if one is to evaluate Mongkut, it has to be in the context of his time and place. Siam was in a very tricky position, caught between colonializing powers on all sides, and he worked out a skillful approach to avoiding colonial domination through modernizing. The terms of modernization were partly dictated by the colonial powers, so Mongkut had limited room for maneuver. He had to turn Siamese Buddhism into a version of Victorian Protestant Scientistic Modernism. Given that, I think he did an extraordinarily good job.

Victorian Protestant Scientistic Modernism was the most advanced religion of the day, but it’s wrong in all the ways you point out. I don’t know very much about what the consequences of imposing it were for the Thai people. I do know that contemporary American Buddhism is mainly based on Mongkut’s vision, and therefore on Victorian Protestant Scientistic Modernism. And that is a poor fit for Americans in 2016; and so contemporary American Buddhism is largely preposterous.

Much of what I have done on this blog has been to point out ways that what Americans think of as “Buddhism” is indeed Victorian Protestant Scientistic Modernism, and why that doesn’t work. I’ve detailed many of the same points you make. For example:

“I have seen desire destroy people, but I have also seen it save them” — This is the essential insight of Buddhist Tantra, which Mongkut apparently rejected because it was incompatible with Victorian Christianity. I have written many posts about Tantra and why it may be a better starting point for a contemporary American Buddhism than Mongkut’s Victorianized Sutrayana. This might be one starting point.

“I find that sticking strictly to scripture isn’t necessarily a good idea” — See Problems with scripture

“I think he was wrong to try and rid Buddhism of those customs and folk practices” — I have written about them sympathetically here

“People in different situations have different needs and ways of connecting to the sacred” — Yes; see this

“Wisdom, tranquility, and goodness are often found in places one does not expect to find them” — For example, here :-)

Several points you make about the limits to systematic, rational understanding — the fluid mode concerns this.