Honglad.txt Page:1 JOURNAL OF BUDDHIST ETHICS ONLINE CONFERENCE ON BUDDHISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS 1-14 October 1995 BUDDHISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE THOUGHTS OF SULAK SIVARAKSA AND PHRA DHAMMAPIDOK (PRAYUDH PRAYUTTO) SORAJ HONGLADAROM Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts Chulalongkorn University Bangkok 10330, THAILAND e-mail: soraj@chulkn.car.chula.ac.th COPYRIGHT (C) Soraj Hongladarom 1995 Publication date: 18 September 1995 COPYRIGHT NOTICE Digital copies of this work may be made and distributed provided no charge is made and no alteration is made to the content. Reproduction in any other format with the exception of a single copy for private study requires the written permission of the editors. All enquiries to JBE-ED@PSU.EDU. TEXT INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF BUDDHISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 raises the problem of how the concept of human rights are compatible with the cultures and practices of those civilizations where the concept has not taken a firm root. The concept of human rights, as expressed in the UN Declaration, is regarded as alien, or as an imposition of foreign, namely Western, powers on the lives and minds of non-Western people whose cultural development does not go along the same path trodden by the West. In the case of Thailand (formerly Siam), [1] which was not directly colonized by any Western powers, the concept is also generally regarded as foreign, and the Thai word for human rights--//Sitthi Manussayachon//--still rings an unfamiliar sound. For most Thais, the word simply conjures up the image of someone who disregard the traditional pattern of compromise and harmonization of social relations; someone, that is, who is quite out of touch with the traditional Thai mores. However, the mores themselves are changing. As the country is surging toward industrialization, and as the people are ever estranged from the traditional way of living, more Thais are beginning to realize the need for human rights. This is well Honglad.txt Page:2 attested by the Black May incident of 1993, when scores of Thais lost their lives fighting for democracy against the army. The discourse of Thai people is beginning to presuppose the basic premises of human rights, even though these are not spelled out explicitly. The situation is that of a dynamic where traditional mores are being left behind and the people are groping for a new one. This situation, then, raises, the problem of how to accommodate human rights within the constitutive beliefs of Thai culture. Since the core of Thai beliefs is represented by Buddhism, a problem then ensues concerning how to reconcile the religion and its way of life with the new mores, part of which is the conception and actualization of human rights. In this paper I shall investigate the situation, comparing and contrasting two famous thinkers in contemporary Thailand-- Sulak Sivaraksa [2] and Phra Dhammapidok (Prayudh Prayutto). [3] The former is a noted scholar of political philosophy and social critic who has often been given a hard time by power holders for his daring outspokenness and truth telling. The latter is a Buddhist monk and scholar. He is an author of a book, _Buddhadhamma_, [4] which is widely recognized in Thailand as one of the most lucid expositions of the Buddha's teaching. His thoughts on Buddhist views on various aspects of life are very well respected. Being a respected monk, he has never been in trouble with the authorities. Although both are steeped in the Thai Theravaada tradition, however, their views on the role of Buddhism regarding problems of society, including that of human rights, diverge in a significant way. While Sulak favors a kind of socially engaged Buddhism in which the religion is seen as an instrument toward betterment of the society in terms of justice, democracy and respect for human rights, Prayudh Prayutto tends to be more conservative, and for him Buddhism seems to be more concerned with the cessation of suffering at the individual level rather than trying to improve society at large. I shall try to show in this paper how both thinkers deal with the problem of the relation between Buddhism and human rights, accentuating the key problem of the relationship of Buddhism toward its social environment. BUDDHISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN SULAK SIVARAKSA For more than three decades Sulak Sivaraksa has been a leading voice of conscience for the Thai people. His continual and courageous criticisms of successive unjust regimes have given him a lot of trouble with the authorities. During the time when seemingly all sectors of the Thai society were effectively silenced by totalitarian regimes, his was the sole voice raised against them, aiming at raising the awareness in Thai people of the true meaning of democracy and justice. [5] Sulak calls for a return to the real roots of the Thais, and examination of imported Western values and technologies. He rails against Western educated intellectuals in his society who appear to Honglad.txt Page:3 worship Western techniques and ways of thinking without really understanding the roots and historical contexts of those techniques and thinking. That is, he persistently criticizes the normal attitude among Thai bureaucratic planners who blindly adopt the Western models without critically examining whether they really lead to 'good life.' He calls for a return to the traditional pattern of Thai life. This call, however, does not mean he is advocating a nostalgic glorification of the past. In fact he has many stinging words directed against aspects of Thai history. But the call is part of his campaign against the rampant consumerism in Thailand today. For him Thais should abandon consumerism and return to their indigenous culture with a strong critical attitude. Sulak thinks that Buddhism is anything but a religion devoted solely to an individual search for salvation with no regard for the social environment within which such search takes place. He is often vehement against monks who abandon the true teaching of Buddhism and become mere instruments of power wielders to legitimize their rules. [6] In _Saassanaa Kap Sangkhom Thai_ [Religion and Thai Society], one of Sulak's most important work, he writes: The saying that Buddhism is concerned only with individual salvation is a complete neglect of its basic principle, that is, the denial that individual soul exists. The Buddha's teaching concerns only individuals, but it is also involved with something wider, which cannot be other than the society and politics. And this is what the Buddha often said in the Pali canon, which is the main scripture of the Theravaada tradition. The attempt to understand Buddhism without its relations to the society is an error. Buddhism is an attempt to relate with the individual's serious disease. It is primarily a way to defeat limitations of the //attaa// in a way that brings in involvement with the social and the political. Until Buddhists are well aware of this fact, their adherence of Buddhism cannot help them get rid of their //attaa//. [7] That is, the supreme goal of Theravaada Buddhism, attainment of the state of extinguishment of all defilements or nibbaana (Sanskrit, nirvaa.na), is not possible if the Buddhist cuts himself or herself out of his or her involvement with the social and the political, according to Sulak. Since Buddhism teaches that existence of a self is an illusion, to try to proceed to nibbaana by getting //this individual self of mine// to arrive at salvation is thus a contradiction. Rather one must be aware that one's own self is indistinguishable from that of all others, and in fact that there is no underlying self behind the momentary consciousnesses which are constantly in flux. This means for Sulak that an individual must relate to others, and any attempt to cut oneself off from such relation is a presupposition of an individual self in the first place. Honglad.txt Page:4 This idea of the impossibility of attaining nibbaana without dissolution of the individual self and relation toward others, then, is the core of Sulak's view on the relation between Buddhism and human rights. The ideal form of society is one where its members are all free from self attachments. However, Sulak realizes that such a society is only an ideal, and Buddhism has to compromise with its social environment in order that its teachings be accessible to the outer circle. That is, the original Buddhist community, which at first consisted only of arahants, later included more laypeople so that its teachings could reach them and change them for the better. [8] Thus the ideal community of the selfless arahants form an ideal, or a standard on which ethical and moral judgement of lay societies are based. Thus such violations of human rights as slavery, torture, etc. could only be a movement in the opposite direction to the ideal, for these violations all result from strong attachment to the self of the violators of human rights. Without any attachment to the individual self, without the consciousness of 'Me' and 'Mine' as Bhikkhu Buddhadasa teaches, [9] there is no motive to violate any of the rights enshrined in the UN Declaration. Instead, respect for human rights follows naturally from such non-attachment. Nevertheless, for Sulak it is not enough for setting the ideal ethical standard which can be used to evaluate social actions. There must be political action by the ruler to actualize and to enforce human rights. According to Sulak, the action of the political ruler is directly related to the wellbeing of the people as a whole. Sulak states that the political ruler and the people are two parts of a tripartite relation, whose remaining part is the Sangha community. The three parts all necessarily depend on one another and have duties toward one another. The king, or the political ruler, has the duty to care for the well being of the Sangha and the people, as well as protect them from harm and danger. The Sangha, on the other hand, has the duty to teach the dhamma to the king and the people, and to remain steadfast as the moral exemplar. The people, then, have the duty to remain righteous and pay allegiance to the king and the Sangha. If one part, on the other hand, does not follow the path of righteousness, for example, if the king is unjust, or if the Sangha does not follow the teaching of the Buddha, then serious calamities occur. The tripartite relation theory stems from the time of Emperor Asoka, who reigned as a //dhammaraaja//, the supreme benefactor and upholder of the Buddhist religion. According to Sulak, It is true that the Sangha community has never been as powerful as the Western clergy. It never has as much power. But it has a countervailing power. In what way? In legitimacy and righteousness. If the king does not follow the dhamma, he is the //adhammaraaja//, and is thus vulnerable to destruction. But if he is a //dhammaraaja//, then he will depend on the Sangha community. The Sangha Honglad.txt Page:5 acts as one who looks after the people. It teaches the people to pay respect to the //dhammaraaja//. It is a countervailing force against the king, preventing him from being too harsh on them. It strives for moderation. [10] Thus in ancient times there was a counterbalance to absolute monarchy. The monarch has to remain on the path of righteousness; otherwise he would not receive legitimacy from the Sangha, and his overthrow would then be legitimate. The idea, however, is hardly applicable in the present time, for the political ruler of contemporary Thailand is hardly a model of the //dhammaraaja// ruler: I would like to tell you about the present situation. I would like to say that in the present society, the tripartite dependency does not work any more, especially after the overthrow of absolute monarchy in BE 2475 [1932]. Those who came to power, including the original perpetrators in BE 2475, all came to power through unscrupulous means. No matter how well intentioned they were, they came to power through betrayal and unjust seizure of power with no trace of legitimacy ... They came in and abolished the existing constitution, and set up a committee to draft a new one. Then there would be an election. All these are merely means to legitimize the power wielders themselves. These people cite their upholding of the monarchical institution, because people still believe that this institution is the source of legitimacy. People still believe that the king is still // dhammaraaja//. The political power holders want the monarchical institution to support them. [11] In Sulak's eyes, the legitimacy of the monarch as //dhammaraaja// in Siam stopped with the overthrow of absolute monarchy and founding of representative democracy in 1932. However, the holders of political power since then were almost all unjust and unrighteous, so there has been no real //dhammaraaja// in the country since the founding of democracy. This point is the motif behind Sulak's repeated criticisms of all those who come to power in Thailand through the unjust means of //coup d'etat//. For Sulak, these means of coming to power are gross violations of human rights, for the military who usurp legitimate power based on the will of the people do not respect the principle of democratic will nor do they have any sense of human dignity and rights as, for example, enshrined in the UN Declaration. The //dhammaraaja// is the ruler who is steadfast in the path of justice and righteousness. He acts in accordance with the dhamma, which is the way the nature of thing is. To act contrary to the dhamma, therefore, would be to act in a way that is contrary to nature. Calamities in various forms result. Thus, the contemporary rulers of Thailand, even though they do not claim to be kings, nonetheless have to act in accordance with the dhamma. Otherwise they would lose all their legitimate claims to power, and are thus subject to criticisms, censure and overthrow. Honglad.txt Page:6 For Sulak, the concept of human rights is clearly indigenous to traditional Thai culture, of which Theravaada Buddhism is an essential part, and it is ironically the imposition of Western ideas that result in loss of such rights in contemporary Thailand. As I have already mentioned, Sulak views the traditional Thai village life as where the quintessentially Thai identity and values lie. This view is the motive behind Sulak's repeated criticisms of consumerism. In the traditional Thai life, there were also some cases of injustice and violations of human rights, to be sure. But these are small scale and tempered by the adherence to the Buddhist teaching by all parts of the society. [12] On the other hand, the imposition of the ideas of consumerism, greed and exploitation of the natural environment, which Sulak quite rightly regards as originating from the West, is perpetrated by power holders who are unrighteous and who are mere pawns of Western governments and multinational corporations. The imposition of these Western ideas, then, is a symptom of Thailand's loss of identity due to their misconception that whatever is 'Western' is better and more desirable than the traditional way. The way of life of the traditional village is destroyed, resulting in Thais being alienated from themselves. Gross violations of human rights follow from the acts of these unrighteous governments. Since greed and selfishness underlie the power holders' attitudes, it is natural for Sulak to see that human rights suffer //as a result// of the imposition of Western ideas rather than that human rights result //because of// such imposition. According to Sulak Sivaraksa, then, the relation between Buddhism and human rights is such that respect for the latter is already there in the teaching of Buddhism. Since Buddhism teaches non-existence of the individual self, concerns for others and dissolution of selfish attitudes naturally follow. Human rights for Sulak are not only the preserve of the West; on the contrary, Sulak's repeated criticisms of the West show that blindly following the Western model results in loss of human rights. Thus what is needed is not such blind following, but a critical attitude and a deep respect of one's own cultural heritage. For Sulak genuine respect for human rights would not be possible if Thais still look down on their heritage and uncritically accept anything coming from the West without seeing its potential danger. BUDDHISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN PHRA DHAMMAPIDOK In one of his lectures given to the lay audience on "Education for Peace", Phra Dhammapidok outlines some of his ideas on the relation between Buddhism and its social environment as follows: In order to solve this problem [i.e., loss of peace] Buddhism teaches that we need to attend to the root cause. Everything depends on its cause. An effect is a result of a Honglad.txt Page:7 cause. We need to see where the cause is. But here there are so many causes. Why are people making war? Because they hate each other, or sometimes their interests come into conflict. Sometimes it's because their views are different ... They are attached to the view that their own particular religion is the best; anyone else's are all bad. These are all the world's problems. In sum, Buddhism teaches that these problems are all caused inside the minds of human beings. Before they are expressed externally as killing, using weapons, throwing grenades, using planes to bomb, etc., these actions must originate in the mind first. Human beings need to intend before they act. Hence the problem first arises in the mind. The problem arises in the mind. What does the mind contain? It contains the knot of the problem for which the Buddha already gave a principle. We are talking simply and clearly, so we need some Buddhist terms. They are packed with meanings. If we use ordinary people's language we will have to talk for a long time. But if we use the Buddhist terms we need only three of them. They represent almost everything. The Buddhist terms indicating the root causes inside the mind which compel humans to act in ways that are recognized as loss of peace are: (1) //Ta.nhaa// (desire), (2) // Maana// (self-aggrandizement), and (3) //Di.t.thi// (belief, attachment to one's viewpoint). [13] These ideas represents almost all of Phra Dhammapidok's view on the relation between Buddhism and its social environment. The problem, according to him, springs originally from inside the mind and is ultimately solvable only by uprooting these causes. Thus for him the role of education is of paramount importance, for it alone is capable of going inside the mind to change it for the better. It is not surprising, then, that he is intensely concerned with the problem of education, and has written numerous books and given countless lectures on the role of education. [14] For him education does not limit itself only to the level of self perfection leading ultimately to nibbaana; he also points out various shortcomings in the education system of modern Thailand. Here is where his thought is most likely to be in the category of social criticism. However, the most important role of education is none other than the perfection of an individual in such a way that he realizes the dhamma and gets rid of all defilements, or at least tries to improve himself according to the Buddha's teaching the best he or she can. Nevertheless, his main point regarding the relation between Buddhism and society is clear. Since society is composed of individuals, the only way that social problems can be solved in such Honglad.txt Page:8 a way that no problems could arise any further is that all individuals in that society attain the state of selflessness. Effort by individuals at education and self perfection counts for the most in his view. Phra Dhammapidok's idea on the primary importance of mental motivation figures prominently in his view on human rights. In a lecture given at the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago, he presents his view on the issue, which, due to its importance, I am quoting here in full: The concept of human rights arose from a historical background of division, segregation and competition. Human rights are a necessary protection from aggression from other parties, an answer to a negative situation: when humanity is plagued by aggression and contention, it is necessary to devise some protection from aggression. Human rights have led to the establishment of laws and regulations devised to try to maintain harmony within human society. Within developed countries these qualities are very effective and as such are very useful to the global situation. While human rights are useful within the environment of dissension, they are not very far reaching. They are only a compromise. Compromise is not capable of leading human beings to true unity and harmony. Compromise is a situation in which each side agrees to give in a little to the other in order to attain some mutual benefit. A quality of force or mental resignation is involved. As long as human beings do not outgrow their old ways of thinking, it will be impossible to bring about true peace in the world. The concept of human rights is useful in an age of fighting and contention, or when human thinking is divisive and separatist, but is not enough to lead humanity to true peace and harmony. In essence, the concept of human rights have three major flaws: Firstly, the concepts themselves are flawed. They have resulted from a background and basic attitude of division and segregation, struggle and contention. This situation led to an attempt to assure self-preservation and protect mutual interests, which became human rights. Human rights must be obtained through demand. Secondly, human rights are a convention, they are a purely human invention and do not exist as a natural condition. They are not 'natural rights'. Being a human invention, they do not have any firm and lasting foundation of truth. They must be supported by laws and they must be accepted by all parties in order to work. They are not lasting. If Honglad.txt Page:9 human rights are to be lasting and firm they must be connected to natural reality. In order for human rights to be founded on natural reality, human mentality must be developed to a stage where people are prepared to preserve human rights. Only in this way will human rights be sustainable. This leads us to the third flaw of the concept of human rights, which is that it is a purely social convention, dealing with social behaviour. It does not consider the quality of mental motivation within the individual. Social behaviour must always be connected to mental motivation, which is both the instigator and the guiding influence of that behaviour. If the mental foundation is faulty, or there is not a good foundation within the mind, then instead of leading to a good result, the result will be more and more contention. [15] The basic idea is clear. Human rights, according to Phra Dhammapidok, are results of contention among individuals. Thus at best they represent a way of living together which is not optimal. Pure motivation, which is not based on hatred or contentious feelings, is necessary to achieve the ideal, and activists who struggle for human rights would not be moving toward the ideal if their inner motivation is not pure. There is a gap between the ideal community and one where human rights are necessary. Since the human rights, for Phra Dhammapidok, are but social invention, they are contingent and not necessary for the ideal community. In such a community, where hatred and divisiveness is not known, there is no need for human rights. These rights are necessary when individuals are not free from divisiveness and delusion; they form a basis of laws, for example. But it seems that for him human rights are superseded when the community has developed and achieved the state of the ideal. Right social regulations, according to Phra Dhammapidok, consist of those which promote the spiritual development of the individual. He distinguishes between the Dharma, which is natural law, and Vinaya, which is human law. Since human rights serve to secure peace and order for a society, a safeguard against unbridled aggression, they could be regarded as a form of the Vinaya. However, the latter derives its value only from its being the means toward realization of the Dharma or natural law, which for him means "man's internal independence and freedom". [16] The role of the others is also necessary, for the monk could attain the supreme end only through material help provided by others. An orderly and peaceful society is a necessary condition for the monk to attain such state. [17] On the other hand, the monk who realizes the true Dharma is of tremendous help to the others in showing them the Path. [18] The concept of human rights in Phra Dhammapidok's view is also related with that of the social kamma (Sanskrit, karma). Honglad.txt Page:10 This is the kamma committed by the society as a whole. When a society allows itself to be led by an unjust and unrighteous dictator, for example, it incurs the social kamma and has to pay for the consequences. [19] The dictator may even not be a person, but an idea, for example consumerism. Thus a consumerist society, in which its members do not critically reflect on the danger of the idea, incurs a social kamma. [20] Thus, in the same manner as the individual kamma is overcome when the individual follows the path leading to Enlightenment, at the social level the same is the case when the society as a whole follows the same path. Phra Dhammapidok thinks that this is a rationale in Buddhism for an endorsement of social action. [21] In order to cure a society suffering from bad social kamma, a kind of social action aiming at creating a favorable condition necessary for spiritual development of individuals is required. In sum, Phra Dhammapidok's view on Buddhism and human rights is that he sees the latter as resulting from divisiveness and contentions among individuals, which are not favorable toward realization of individual perfection. This does not mean, however, that for him human rights have no role to play at all. On the contrary, in order that individual perfection be possible at all, the external environment must be favorable, and for that to be so the society, it seems, need to endorse human rights. He is not clear, however, on the question of whether the concept of human rights are impositions from the West, but presumably this point does not matter much for him. If a community is full of divisiveness, then a conception of human rights is necessary, and this seems to be the case for any community. Though the rights are necessary, they are never sufficient, and he is at pains to point out that if they are applied without the right conditions of the mind, then they will only lead the people astray, and will not be effective toward realizing the perfection at all. The right condition of the mind is then of primary importance. CONCLUSION: A COMPARISON AND CONTRAST While there are obvious agreements on many issues, a basic difference between Sulak and Phra Dhammapidok on the nature of Buddhism and human rights is clear. While Sulak views human rights as an integral part of the end of Buddhism, Phra Dhammapidok views them as merely a means. It can be said that both Sulak and Phra Dhammapidok are examples of how Thais cope with the problem of how best to adapt their belief system in the face of contemporary developments. The two, it appears, go different ways. The difference seems to come from the fact that both perhaps view the nature of human rights differently. Sulak views them as constitutive of the ideal end of Buddhism; Phra Dhammapidok believes they are symptoms of divisiveness. Perhaps Sulak thinks that the effect of human rights is primary. That is, when the society is just and righteous, there is naturally a respect for human rights already. The legal or Honglad.txt Page:11 political aspect of such rights, as well as their enforcement, would not be necessary and would then be ignored. On the other hand, Phra Dhammapidok seems to think that human rights are inseparable from their legal and political aspect. That is, they are parts and parcels of procedural justice. Since law and politics are only needed when individuals are not enlightened, human rights then are not part of the ideal community. Who is right, then? I am afraid that that would be out of the scope of this paper. Perhaps this question should not be raised at all. The question, nonetheless, accentuates the problematic of the relationship between Buddhism and its social environment. Thus an advantage of the question is that we now appreciate its inherent difficulty more fully, and realize that a lot more work and thinking needs to be done before an answer can be glimpsed. NOTES [1]. The country was formerly known as Siam. It changed its name to Thailand in 1939, as a result of a nationalist and ethnic consciousness campaign. The name was reverted to Siam again in 1947, but two years later, in 1949, it changed back to Thailand again and has remained so ever since. Sulak is one of the very few in Thailand nowadays who still presses for changing the name of the country back to Siam. His reason is that the name 'Thailand' is a consequence of nationalistic thinking whose aim is to elevate the status of ethnic Thais higher than all other ethnic groups in the country. [2]. According to the Thai pronunciation, his name is 'Sulak Sivarak'; however, the formal spelling of his name in English is 'Sulak Sivaraksa'. This mismatch between actual pronunciation and spelling is common in Thai language and should not be confused. [3]. Phra Dhammapidok's personal name as a monk is Prayudh Prayutto, but he has received successive ecclesiastical titles from the King, and his latest title is 'Phra Dhammapidok'. This is a title which the King can confer to any deserving monk, so it is usual to append the holder's personal name in parenthesis after his title. Phra Dhammapidok's former titles were, from lower to higher: Phra Rajavaramuni and Phra Depvedi. His publications, therefore, bear these differing titles, and the readers should be aware that these titles all belonged, at one time or another, to one and the same person. [4]. Phra Rajavaramuni (Prayudh Prayutto), _Buddhadhamma_ revised and enlarged edition (Bangkok: Khana Radom Tham, BE 2525 1982). [5]. Sulak Sivaraksa, _Chuang Haeng Kaan Patiwat_ [Period of Revolution] (Bangkok: Kledthai Press, BE 2517 1974). Honglad.txt Page:12 [6]. "Worse than that [the military rulers of Thailand] is our Sangha, which lost its leadership, and was replaced by the new Western trained and educated elite. Now the Sangha is being used effectively by the military, the bureaucracy, the industrialists and commercial sectors, who combine to suck everything out of the people, as well as from Mother Earth--in the name of development or progress". Sulak Sivaraksa, _A Socially Engaged Buddhism_ (Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development, 1988): 44-45. [7]. Sulak Sivaraksa, _Saassana Kap Sangkhom Thai_ [Religion and Thai Society] (Bangkok: Phaasikoo Press, BE 2523 1980): 239-240. [8]. Sulak Sivaraksa, _Saassana Kap Sangkhom Thai_ [Religion and Thai Society]: 81-90. [9]. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Thailand's foremost Buddhist monk and scholar, taught about the 'Me' and 'Mine' in various books. Some English introductions of his work are Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, _Dhammic Socialism_ Donald K. Swearer transl. (Bangkok: Inter-Religious Commission for Development 1986); Peter Jackson, _Buddhadasa: A Buddhist Thinker for the Modern World_ (Bangkok: The Siam Society 1988). A study of Buddhadasa's thought and its affinity with the Mahaayaana tradition is Suwanna Satha-Anand, _Prajya Putthathaas Kap Mahaayaana Tham_ [Mahayana Buddhism in Buddhadasa's Philosophy], Chulalongkorn University Research Report Series, no. 31 (Bangkok: Research Dissemination Project BE 2536 1993). [10]. Sulak Sivaraksa, _Saassana Kap Sangkhom Thai_ [Religion and Thai Society]: 93. [11]. Sulak Sivaraksa, _Saassana Kap Sangkhom Thai_ [Religion and Thai Society]: 98. [12]. Sulak Sivaraksa, _Saassana Kap Sangkhom Thai_ [Religion and Thai Society]: 23-25. In fact this theme of traditional Thai way of life as a source of value recurs in almost every work written by Sulak. It forms the core of his criticism of greed, consumerism and selfishness which he finds almost ubiquitous in contemporary Thai society. See especially Sulak Sivaraksa, _A Socially Engaged Buddhism_: 42-47; _Thammai Jung Taai Phua Prachathippathai_ [Why Die for Democracy?] (Bangkok: Samaphan Press, n.d.): 33-53; "Ekkalak Khong Sangkhom Thai" [Identity of Thai Society] in _Chuang Haeng Kaan Patiwat_ [Period of Revolution] (Bangkok: Kledthai Press, BE 2517 1974); _Wiphaak Ror Sor Chor: Lork Kraab Anand Panyarachun_ [Criticizing the National Peace Keeping Council: Exposing Anand Panyarachun]. (Bangkok: Samaphan Press, n.d.): 63-95. [13]. Phra Dhammapidok, _Kaan Suksaa Phua Santiphaap_ Honglad.txt Page:13 [Education for Peace] (Bangkok: Buddhadhamma Foundation, BE 2538 1995): 18-19. [14]. Another of his most well known books is Phra Rajavaramuni, _Prajya Kaan Suksa Thai_ [Philosophy of Thai Education] (Bangkok: Kledthai Press, BE 2518 1975). He also outlines his ideas in published lectures, such as Phra Depvedi, _Thaang Ork Khong Sangkhom Thai_ [Way Out for Thai Society] (Bangkok: Samakhom Sidkao Mahachulalongkorn Rajavitthayalai BE 2531 1988). [15]. P. A. Payutto, _Phutthavithii Kae Panha Phua Satawad Thii 21_ [A Buddhist Solution for the Twenty-first Century] (Bangkok: Sahathammik BE 2537 1994): 13-15. [16]. Phra Rajavaramuni, "Social Dimension of Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand" (Paper no. 15, Thai Khadi Research Institute, Thammasat University 1983): 41. [17]. Phra Rajavaramuni, "Social Dimension of Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand": 41. [18]. Phra Rajavaramuni, "Social Dimension of Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand": 41. [19]. P. A. Payutto, _Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching_ (Bangkok: Buddhadhamma Foundation 1993): 68. [20]. P. A. Payutto, _Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching_: 68. [21]. P. A. Payutto, _Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching_: 69.