Are Thais racist against white people?

That must sound like a strange question, that splitting off who are the main targets of unequal treatment might be appropriate, starting out with asking if Thais are racist full stop.

My take is that answer is simple:  they are.  There is a mainstream, well-accepted prejudice against black people, Indians, and people from the Middle East.  It just is what it is. 

All of this came up recently in relation to a story by Richard Barrow about being turned away at the most popular tourist-attraction temple in Thailand, Wat Pho.  I'll get back to that.


Of course some people are not racist at all, everywhere.  Some see people of all races, nationalities, social status / income levels, and gender self-designation and relationship preference as completely equal.  Good for them.  As I take it the concern relates to the norm, what would be typical.  It's just my impression, based on living in Thailand, but I understand that some very limited degree of racial bias is quite normal in Thailand. 


None of this bias is expressed as the kind of dislike and preferential treatment that seems to stir up social context concerns in the US now.  Some white people there actively dislike black people; this is not a secret.  A black person getting murdered by a white policeman isn't as much of a rare exception as it should be, but it really is an exception.  The more common forms really are nothing like that, even there.  Racial prejudice that should be very uncommon there does occur though, verbal confrontation and violence, resulting differences in hiring practices and prison population, etc.  Of course the cause and effect sequences are all quite complicated; economic and other factors come into play.

Here in Thailand racial bias is very mild in comparison, more related to who some people wouldn't be open to being roommates with.  That typically wouldn't come up anyway, since all those minorities are not prevalent in Thailand, except there probably is a significant Indian population.  Race inspired violence and even public expression of racial slurs don't really come up very often. 

To be clear "people from the Middle East" is not equated with Thai Muslims.  That group is fairly well accepted, even though there is ongoing violence related to a Muslim separatist movement in the far South of Thailand, because Thais are very open about respecting other religions.


The initial question is odd because Thais generally have a positive image of Western foreigners, of white people.  Of many minorities; Thais love Japanese and Korean culture too.  They don't necessarily see them as essentially completely the same as Thais, and I never will do justice to that complex cultural perspective here.  And all of this will just be based on my own opinions; that goes without saying.  Let's start with introducing the perspective from a couple of other angles, from expat perspective (that of local Western foreigners).

Dual pricing at national parks, and so on

It's a running complaint that foreigners aren't treated equally here.  Some of the examples could seem trivial, but it's easy to see how the perspective builds up from different causes.  An obvious example is that foreigners pay more to enter national parks, or places like zoos, or museums.  Visiting a temple associated with tourism is free for a Thai, but Wat Pho just increased the visitor fee from 100 baht to 200 baht (from $3 to $6).

There's really no justification offered for any of that.  Someone might claim that Thais pay local taxes, but then foreigners living here do too.  The idea seems to be that if someone is wealthy enough to fly from a different part of the world to visit that they can then afford to pay $3 or $6 to visit an old temple, but that this is a burden on many local Thais who earn very little.  Without being spelled out it could mean that, or something else instead.  Either way it works out to something like an extra tax on tourists.

dual-pricing was normal in the last place I lived too, in Hawaii (photo credit)

It doesn't stop at those few places; if anything a disparity of cost widens in local markets, where items are often bargained for versus just sold for one price.  How that works out is complicated; most things Thais don't bargain for when buying, they just know what is negotiable per convention.  Sometimes menus can be printed in two languages, with two listings of prices, but typically it's not like that; that would be an extreme case.

Of course some expats (local foreigners) see it all as unfair.  Some recognize that they earn a completely different scale of income as almost all Thais and take no offense.  I can put a scale to that easily enough.  It's my understanding that a foreigner working here as an English teacher would tend to start out around 30,000 baht per month ($1000), with some earning up to 70 or 80,000, all still for high school level teaching.  Some in very bad placements might earn only 20-25k but that would be an exception.

Per my understanding Thais working in a local school would tend to earn only 15-20,000 per month, without much potential for that to scale up.  Some would probably be closer to 10, for exceptions on that lower end.  An average Thai college professor might earn around 30,000 per month, equivalent to what a foreign English teacher with limited qualifications could easily earn, someone lacking a degree in education.

Thai general perspective of white foreigners

Telling this story almost has to involve how this general perception seems to have changed.  It's my impression that just before I moved here, a dozen years ago now, the impression of foreigners was different.  There was an automatic status associated, and an expectation that such a person would be more qualified as a subject specialist or manager, for example.  That was shifting even back then.

Today a lot of Thai companies actively avoid hiring any Westerners for any reason, and international companies tend to get by using almost entirely Thai staff, because it works out better.  It offsets any need to work around Thai language, higher pay expectations, and cumbersome work permit and visa processing.

It would involve too much summary to explain how white people are seen by Thais, in general.  There are a few standard running themes in perspective, both positive and negative biases, but any given foreigner (or Thai) would express that range differently, and how the balance works out.

Sub-themes complicate things.  At one point there was an impression that any foreigner working here was either an English teacher or subject specialist in an international company, for example someone working in IT (the field I do work in, just for a Thai company).  Retirees would fall into a separate category, with stereotypes mapping to those types of cases.

In general the impression was always mostly positive, it seems, and that is still true today.  "Positive but different" can be an unusual range though; it opens a space for perceptions to be partly negative too.  And other sub-themes come up, about foreigners marrying bar-girls, or backpackers, or foreigners being more likely to have a bad temper, and ignore the social convention to stay calm in public expression.  It's probably best to by-pass all this for now and circle back to a local event that seemed to trigger a lot of "white" resentment about this unequal treatment.

Thais only admitted to a main Bangkok temple, Wat Pho

The main foreigner news blogger, Richard Barrow, recently "broke" a story that he had visited Wat Pho and was turned away for not being Thai.  That's actually what happened; only Thais are being admitted now.  Later on it turned out that the main hall tourists visit there, the large Reclining Buddha statue, is under construction, and with that and corona social-distancing concerns the temple opened only for locals from around the time period of June 5 to the first week of July.  Reasonable enough, but of course all that wasn't part of the initial story.  Other outlets ran the story too:

(Coconuts) ‘Thai People Only’: Famed Bangkok temple refuses entry to foreigners

(Bangkok Post) Thais only policy is racism, pure and simple


Signs at the front only said "Thais only."  Staff couldn't add detail to that, a justification or explanation.  The Wat Pho Facebook page mentioned concerns about social distancing, and gave a limited description implying the limit related to ceasing tourism but not religious observation.

a  June 3rd announcement about re-opening, not mentioned in Richard Barrow's post a week later

It sounds like just a misunderstanding, right?  Not exactly.  For one thing it triggered a lot of foreigner resentment, and validated and confirmed a lot of their pre-existing concerns about racism.  If there was absolutely no difference in perspective and treatment of foreigners it would be easier to brush all that aside, but it's not like that.

The dual-pricing issue is really just one of many concerns.  Current government consistently, repeatedly limits foreigner access to visit or stay in Thailand, even though tourism is a major industry that props up the economy.  Many foreigners living here also bring in a lot of revenue, spending retirement money here, or spending a lot on maintaining a second home, or building up a business (which is highly restricted related to foreign ownership).  Rules can change month to month; interpretation of regulations can change, even when the laws themselves don't.

The last step, one step too far, seemingly, was requiring foreigners to purchase a relatively expensive, oddly described insurance plan to limit impact from foreigners who can't pay their own medical bills.  Normal enough, right?  Except that it could also be seen as yet another tax in disguise.  Given how US health care support initiatives tend to go it's all familiar ground; the starting point made sense but the end result and final form less so.

So reactions to that latest story of discrimination were what one would expect:  displeasure and disappointment.  Taken alone it wouldn't mean much, especially with all the details included, which weren't initially available, the part about construction.

To get to how unfair or tone-deaf this is in relation to this background issue it doesn't hurt to go back and consider how reasonable the restriction really is.  Are all Thais visiting Wat Pho for religious observance, and couldn't a foreign local be doing the same, even if they were born in a different culture?  I'm in an unusual position to consider that, since I was a monk ordained at Wat Pho for two months.  That seemingly makes me a counter-example, but then it's also not that simple.

that was a rough morning; an early start and a lot of formal ritual

my son was a novice there too

making a bin ta baht offering to her brother

The "Thais only" restriction considered further

I'll grant that a difference in how people of the two different races and backgrounds are seen is probably the main real issue at play.  But does it even work to split off the "religious observation versus tourism visit" themes?  Kind of.

There's probably more gap on the Thai side.  Thais really are visiting as a tourism practice, along with that having a religious meaning to them.  It wouldn't be possible to divide the two though.  It would be like when a Catholic visits the Vatican; of course it's both tourism and there is personal religious meaning.  I don't think it's anything like a Muslim visiting Mecca; there just isn't that extra level of religious significance to a main Thai temple versus the other hundreds of them in Bangkok.  It's "higher," more significant in history and meaning, but nothing like that context found in Islam.  I suppose that means it works to bracket (set aside) how this plays out for Thais, and accept that it sort of works.

Most foreigners visiting Wat Pho are just tourists.  I don't mean that in some limiting, negative sense; there's nothing wrong with tourism as an activity and interest.  Most wouldn't consider themselves Buddhists.  Some could, and that's where things get interesting, and relevant.  Does Richard Barrow see himself as a religious Buddhist?  I have no idea.  He had added that he was there to pay respects, and I take that as a genuine interest in religious expression.  Others might not; I guess it could be interpreted differently.

Participation and paying respect could be different things, too.  If I visit the Vatican I might feel a personal awe and deep respect for the history and shared meaning there, but the formal personal religious meaning could still be all but entirely missing for me.  I could greatly respect Catholicism but not see myself as participating in a form of it, even if I was Protestant.

What if a foreigner sees themself as a Buddhist?  I don't think Wat Pho was really thinking this through enough to split out that possibility, and consciously reject it through their policy.  I talked to a monk friend in the administration there and he just didn't seem to get that as being possible.

Of course he would relate to me potentially being seen as Buddhist, by myself or others, since I'm in a Thai Buddhist family.  And I was ordained there, and married there, and visit for some religious holidays (missing most--typical of American religious practice), the usual connections any Thai might have.  I studied Buddhism for over a decade prior to living here, and have two degrees in religion and philosophy, focused mainly on the study of Buddhism (and one in industrial engineering; that story makes no sense).

a Buddhist wedding vows ceremony

I still kind of don't see myself as a Thai Buddhist.  I think that really relates to how I relate to categories and labels though.  Obviously I'm white, American, married--I fall into lots of groupings.  But I tend to keep the self-labeling to a minimum.  And I get the difference between how different people would relate to a subject like Buddhism.  I definitely try to live by Buddhist principles, and Buddhism has been a major influence in my life, and I will continue to participate in formal observances as a member of a Thai Buddhist family.

It doesn't map over very directly to the liberal take on Protestant Christianity I was raised with.  That was quite loose and open; if you say that you accept Jesus as your personal savior you are 100% in.  You can even reject that he is the literal son of God, and see the part about him coming back from being dead as pure fiction, and you're still fine.  If you accept the teachings as valid that's good enough.  Even going to ceremonies is a bit optional; up to you.  You're still not that much less Christian than anyone else, if you see yourself that way.  Maybe just as Christian as the Pope, depending on personal mapping out of those themes.

Thai Buddhism is a little different.  It's hard to fill in how, to give it a full description.  The form is seen as meaningful; the monks chanting actually has an effect.  Believing ideas in literal form makes a difference.  To some extent even being born into a Thai family would make a lot of difference.  Because of racism?

No; because of their literal take on the mechanics of karma.

Karma in Thai Buddhism

This will be a really tough one to explain.  A couple of examples will point towards how it works out but 10,000 words on the subject wouldn't make it clear.  The monks chanting has karmic effect, kind of like magic.  Giving the temple 100 baht for restoration also does, and offering 1000 baht has more effect.  So far so good, right; no tie-in with racism or national bias yet.

Being born a Thai relates back to your karma, to your place in human society.  Someone born into a European country or the US would have a different karma.  Someone being born wealthy here, versus poor, ties to a different karmic background.  It's not as if they definitely deserved it (both placements), but to some extent that's how it is taken, it relates directly to what they did in prior lifetimes.  You can't simply strip away your karma; it identifies who and what you are.  It made you who you became before you even existed, this time around.  Even the options that present themselves for change are the effects of karma, along with your inclination to be open to those, to some degree.

It's not even really necessarily seen as a value-determining factor, it's just how things are.  It sounds a bit like the Indian caste system, doesn't it?  It should; it's probably derived directly from that very framework, from an earlier version of it, adopted along with the Buddhism religion form.

This means that saying "we are all equal" is kind of a nonsensical thing to say or believe, according to a Thai perspective.  In some limited sense sure, but Thais tend to focus on individual rights a lot less.  That's because the assumed context is completely different.  The "self-evident truth that all men are created equal" would be complete nonsense for them.  Equal in what sense?

Obviously some people are born into wealthy families and some into poor ones; some people are born into wealthy countries and others into poor ones.  Some are born in such poor health that they are destined to die young, or are deformed, and others possess exceptional physical and mental capabilities.  It's a silly thing to say, that everyone is created equally.

If the state tries to enforce that, if it's an underlying premise within a society, then sure, to that degree it's true.  But in most cultures and countries that would be seen as unnatural, or at least unrealistic.  Even in the US it kind of doesn't actually work in practice.  That went without saying a month ago, all the more so now.

To be clear as I take core Buddhist teachings people are seen as just as equal as within Christianity (or possibly more so, in relation to varying interpretations within Christianity).  It's more the case that putting a flat-level value judgment on everyone isn't how things work.  I suppose that folds into culture more in relation to state defined roles, which are much more implicit here. 

It's worth remembering that in the US the ideal that "all men are created equal" was written and provisionally accepted at a time when people could own other people, as property; concerns over theory versus practice come up everywhere.

Resolving the contradiction

Another tough one, right?  How can people seen as equal--in a general sense--and more positive in some others (the perception of white people here roughly equating to a higher status level), be completely cast aside, forcing local Thais to see everyone as equal? 

Foreigners aren't granted the authority to re-write local Thai culture in their own image.


To local expats (foreigners living here) this temple entry issue is a clear sign of racism.  Under their expectations and paradigm it would have to be that.  Here it kind of is, but it's also a bit silly to set up the expectation that there can be no separate treatment of Thais in relation to foreigners in Thailand.  That would be like rejecting that local Hawaiians pay less to enter the Waikiki zoo.  You just can't put that on them; you can't shift local expectations and rules.  That example ties back to a completely different history and context (the US sort of "stole" their country), but in either case you are trying to swap out local expectations and context framing for your own "improved, higher" version.  Local cultures don't work that way.

The only way this could be resolved, from either direction, is for the expats seeing this as racism to understand the Thai perspective, or for the temple administrators (the monks; it is ran by them, not a PR firm or tourism council) to completely "get" a Western perspective.   Even for people reading this explanation of the underlying context that wouldn't work.  Some part of what I've claimed here would seem wrong, or oversimplified, or it would seem that I've rushed to accept something that just doesn't make sense.  Neither perspective and context makes sense from the other perspective; in part that conclusion is absolutely correct.

I'm discussing the underlying context, a level of assumptions, and worldviews, ordinary perspective, and reasoning is what gets built on top of all that.



All of this results in an odd cycle of how foreigners living here see Thailand and Thai culture, played out over and over in individual cases.  Some few "integrate;" they actually do see things more as Thais do, and take up a role more or less within their society.  They're still farang but the context becomes clear.

More commonly people go through a familiar shift:  they see Thailand as a paradise where everyone is friendly and things are simple, then they recognize pros and cons, and then they hate parts of the local culture for being unfair, for aspects of local systems to be "rigged against them."  And that last part isn't necessarily completely wrong; go into a court system opposed to a Thai and your chances of a favorable ruling aren't good, never mind the actual circumstances.  Go through a divorce, as many do, and you will have exactly that experience.

Those foreigners are all just either at the middle or towards the end of that cycle.  It's not paying $8 to go into a zoo or park, when Thais pay $2, that's getting to them, it's everything.  That's just a symbol.  Based on the expectation that the state and related institutions should see everyone as equal, which is carried over from where they are from (unless they just moved from Hawaii), they are being slighted and cheated.


Next one might wonder:  do the pros and cons of being treated separately not add up to a more even balance for white foreigners, given that Thais aren't actually racist against them? 


Maybe; sort of.  The advantages are hard to place though, and if you would end up valuing most just being seen as normal, as equal, then your main desire and goal is to not accumulate that set of positive biases over other Thai residents.

It's tempting to go into what I mean, how being white automatically maps over to an equivalent social status as a wealthy Thai.  That part is what I mean in relation to how 10,000 words won't cover the context well.  A white person would get more respect, which would lead towards some exceptions being made in unusual cases.

White people also act the part of sources of revenue, to some extent, as the people who pay more in markets, who pay the higher tier in dual pricing, the ones who get more traffic tickets, and play a role in an unusual taxation for needing special medical insurance, and a visa and work permit.  Getting better service in a restaurant--or whatever that extra benefit is--comes along with being charged more across a broad spectrum.

There is no resolving all this.  It is what it is.  At least by understanding it a foreigner could live at peace with the exceptions and additional demands, and a Thai could understand their own worldview that much better.  Bitter, through-the-whole-cycle expats never get there.  They simply accept that Thais are biased against foreigners instead.  It's not really that simple.  They are just seen as different, slightly higher in status in one sense, and not a participant in local group-inclusion benefits in another.

The end of the Wat Pho racial discrimination story

Wat Pho finally posted this on their Facebook page:


Due to restoration in progress on the Reclining Budhha and paintings inside the building it is not allowing access to non Thai nationals, it was decided that for the safety of tourists it would restrict access. It has been discussed and the temple should reopen to all from 1st july 2020. It was decided that it was a good opprtunity to use the situation with covid 19 to do the work that was needed, and we are very sorry for the inconvenience and disapointment people may feel.


Not bad; still not a complete explanation or resolution, but close enough.

Richard's Facebook post has 1700 comments and over 1000 shares; the PR damage was done.

That temple is ran as a religious institution, not mainly as a tourist attraction, so the negative PR would be seen as a bad thing, but it's not the same case as if that would happen to Disney.  They do generate profit to use to support other temples, to pay for maintenance and utility expenses, and to support school systems.  But they just aren't as marketing and profit oriented as a commercial tourism destination would be, which is why this came up in the first place.

not a PR cover story hoax, it would seem

Post-script:  while editing the final version of this I ran across this related Richard Barrow post:


Ancient Siam in Samut Prakan  (https://facebook.com/muangborantheancientcity) is doing a special welcome back promotion of only 465 Baht for an annual pass. I inquired about this as I live nearby but was told only for Thais. Foreign tourists must pay the usual inflated price.

❗️WARNING: This tourist attraction has a #2pricethailand policy.


Dual-pricing discrimination is definitely a real thing in Thailand, not just limited to national parks, zoos, museums, and main temples.  If you show them a local ID (as a foreigner) they will give you the day-pass rate that Thais pay, which isn't so bad, you just aren't eligible to buy the annual pass.

Maybe as in the US it will take a round of protests to draw awareness to this injustice to get that resolved.  It is an odd contrast, considering a drive to get a privileged and higher income foreign minority group on-par lower pricing with a broad and much lower average income local population.

Is Buddhism religion or a philosophy?

I keep seeing this type of question in a Facebook Buddhism group that I'm not very active in, and since an answer doesn't really fit in a post comment I'll write a longer one-page version with my own opinion.  To skip ahead to the answer:  to me Buddhism isn't a religion or a philosophy, it's something closer to a practical version of psychology.  Some context applies before getting to that part though. 

I tend to agree with a lot of other answers that come up in Buddhism groups, but the form and tone of those vary a lot.  Input written in a form closer to a koan (logic puzzle) seems less practical, to me.

Of course Buddhism is also a religion; I'm part of a Thai Buddhist family now, living in Bangkok, and there are monks and temples around.  I ordained as a Thai Buddhist monk here once for two month, and was married in a Buddhist religious ceremony.  To be clear this post isn't supposed to be about self-promotion; I wrote about those subjects, so I'll mention them here, but this is about explaining my general understanding of Buddhism.  I studied some philosophy and religion in degree programs too, but I'm not positioning myself as some sort of subject expert here; I'm just interested in Buddhism.

right after the ordination ceremony (with more on that experience here)

my son once spent two weeks as a novice monk once too (which I wrote about in my tea blog)

As I'm taking the question the title question is really asking something else, more specific, if Buddhism at its core, or as the Buddha taught and intended it, is one of these things over the others.  Any answer would be speculation; it would involve that given person's ideological preference and personal understanding.

At this point some Buddhists reading this might naturally claim that Buddhism isn't an ideology, it's more a methodology, a reductive sort of approach to human experience, so it's not fair to call interpretation of the ideas an ideology.  That matches up with my take.  That also folds in some bias for how the ideas are arranged, regardless of how categories work out, so one has to be careful with that sort of line of reasoning. 

Maybe it works to "sweep away" the framework of the ideas by setting them aside as they are practiced and have fulfilled their function, but it's not clearly a given.  Maybe Buddhism is really an odd form of experiential process or approach that tidies up lots of surplus of other ideas, framing, preconceptions, and assumptions, but to some extent that could also be part of an ideology, even if someone is sure they experience it as something else.


Let's back up a bit, and cover how I'm using terms and categories. 

Religion is designed to explain things using variations on conventional forms, first causes (what made the universe), after life schemes (where do we go when we die), metaphysical structure (is there a permanent soul or not), and so on.  Morality / ethical codes factor in; that's essentially always a core component.

a Thai wedding ceremony.  there were monks chanting in a different part.

Philosophy is something else; it uses ideas to examine human worldviews and forms of perception, and essentially assumes that reason can sort things out, to some degree.  Even in forms where reason isn't assigned some all-illuminating role it's still reason that's describing the usefulness and limitations of reason, for example in relation to other aspects of experience (about direct experience, tied to causal issues and themes, framing meaning--whatever else it is).  To some extent even a personal philosophy that wants to limit and tear down the role of reason is still going to need to use the concepts--reason itself--towards that end.  Ethics also comes up here, but the groundwork needs to be relatively rational, or at least functional, not based on external authority.


Buddhism isn't these things, at its core.  To be clear this is just my take, and I won't be citing any scripture to support it, or even delving into ever-lower levels of supporting broad points made with finer levels of explanation.  It's a methodology that lets you simplify how you experience reality.  To some extent there may be some best-case, very simple, and relatively direct form of experience, but at least initially it's as well to not tie up too much goal-orientation or mental energy in figuring out what that form might be like (enlightenment).  It's just a set of tools to help simplify things, and that's enough.  Later on forms of experience would probably vary from initial practices and perspective changes.

The 8-fold path should be familiar; without some core concepts like that to work with it would be hard to put together any starting-point opinion about what might be going on.  While one explores those sorts of ideas it's best to keep in mind that even though some teachings are said to be the original words of the Buddha we've inherited those across time.  Swap out the meaning for suffering (or dukkha) just a bit and you might lose a lot of the original point. 

That's not an abstract guess at how variations might go; I think this is a core problem with modern interpretations.  If you swap back in "dis-satisfaction" for suffering per my take that's going to work much, much better.  Dis-satisfaction is unsatisfyingly vague, but that makes it work all the better as a place-holder, since understanding of these sorts of ideas are supposed to be iterative.  It's all not something one would "completely get" on one read.

It's not so simple to explain how it all works, but why not go there, with the clarification that this will be a limited start, not an explanation. 


One sub-theme is about how reality is really structured.  It's just not a model, more a description of ordinary forms of error (how reality is assumed to be, but really isn't, at least related to certain assumptions not being as functional as they seem).  That makes it negative, in the sense of describing what isn't, not necessarily related to what is bad, which again could be a bit unfamiliar.  It's not so bad thinking that you are made up of a permanent, real self; there's just a lot of function to be had in questioning that and setting it aside, at least temporarily and to a limited extent.  Anyway, to switch back to pointing out general themes here I'm talking about the one part that is made up of the ideas about reality, that one branch.

Then there is mindfulness (momentary awareness practice), and meditation (hard to describe what that's all about in a few words), both of which go along with the ideas, and support them.  Obviously these things are experiential.  A moral code works along with the rest; in some way it makes sense and is functional to observe an externally-derived set of guidelines related to not causing others harm, and so on.  While the first part (the last paragraph) made it sound a little like a philosophy, except for the deconstruction angle, these last three subjects fall a lot closer to religion. 

Mindfullness is a bit of a twist in relation to how Christianity is described in teachings and practiced, but to be clear Jesus did emphasize that the religious practice he was talking about dealt a lot with how people act moment to moment.  It wasn't something you would set aside until Sunday morning, as he was framing it, to have the slate wiped clean again by some religious representative then.

To some extent you have to "buy in" to try it out (the practice of Buddhism), and it's not exactly a rapid process.  Different people would connect to the different parts in different ways, through a different order of engagement, with some parts leading to others essentially for all forms of that experience.  It seemed like that might be missing "valid forms" of that experience, didn't it?  I think if a practice of Buddhism helps someone then it is valid, even if they've skipped parts and have some ideas or themes dead wrong.  Those types of gaps are just definitely not going to help with "getting far" with it (not that it's a contest).  I'll cite an example, nothing so direct, but a subject I've kept coming back to considering.

the temple where my son and I ordained at night

A friend of mine rejected alcoholism to lead a life not based around that drug, only to become a stoner, to replace it with marijuana consumption.  I did the same in my 20s; I had drank a lot and then was stoned a lot.  Her mantra is "progress not perfection," which kinds of works in a limited sense.  It's not supposed to be a statement of Buddhist intention or guiding principle (she doesn't see herself as Buddhist, as far as I know, or influenced by the ideas, practicing theme, etc.), it's just something she says.  It's not exactly a core teaching to not get stoned (that specific restriction), but in most forms Buddhism does get around to mentioning that drug use is not ideal.  Drugs and alcohol cut someone off from directly experiencing their reality; it's them + the drug instead.  More or less Buddhism is about getting out of your own way, not letting preconceptions and abstract ways of structuring ideas remain problematic, and to lighten attachments, in some limited form or range of forms.

Is the problem clear in this?  The drug is probably limiting her, in some sense; base reality isn't good enough, and it requires adjustment.  As a former marijuana user I have my own understanding of why that's a problem for this case and drug, but it's as well to keep that vague and general here. 

Everyone who went through long term dependence on drugs or alcohol (as I did), or different forms of those, gets that making even a moderate form of adjustment to reality often isn't a stable solution.  Sure, people base their lives around it, and in some cases that goes well enough.   Drinking alcohol a little every other day for the rest of your life is fine, to a limited degree.  To me it's not ideal, but it's close enough to normal and "not negative" that we can set the difference aside.  The other problem is that she is setting up a distinction between things being better than they were 20 years ago, and still never managing to get close to some optimum, which she's not even heading towards.

What would be the problem with this "perfection?"  It's implied that striving towards some form of ideal life is itself an obstacle to be avoided.  Rigid restrictions, removing freedoms, could be worse than any potential gains from removing dependencies; it's something like that.  I get the sense that it's not supposed to make tons of sense; it's just a personal approach to life theme.  Which is fine.  It doesn't match conventional understandings of Buddhism very well but it's not supposed to.

It probably sounds like I'm saying that someone couldn't get stoned every day and be a "good Buddhist," or that if they did try to pair those two directions they would contradict each other.  To me I guess that's true.  It's really not about weed, or whatever else, being so destructive, or counter-productive, its more about a problem with someone heading in two different directions at the same time.  If you walk North-East you'll never really go towards the North or the East, but head out somewhere in between.  If the idea is to avoid going West that's probably close enough. 

To me Buddhism is really Buddhism to the extent that it helps you and improves your life; back to the claim it's practical psychology, or a form of self-help, if one would rather.  It's not so much about crossing a finish line of "being enlightened."  As you get further the form changes (as I've experienced it), and value increases, but then lots of things are like that.  If you exercise a little you barely get past working out how to not get injured, and don't make a start on flexibility or strength improvements, never mind cardiovascular health, or stress reduction benefits.  If you eat fruits and vegetables 2 or 3 times a week that can help, but the rest of your diet remains a much more significant factor.

Maybe there's a contradiction in that take on drug use and how practicing only a little Buddhism is valid, isn't there?  I'm saying that making consumption of weed a priority in your life would run counter to putting into practice the exploration and application of Buddhism, and then I'm also saying that someone doing a little of both could be ok for them.  Different people would take it all in different ways.  My friend is right that setting a distant and seemingly impossible goal as the main driver may not be as effective as embracing ongoing change.  It's a little different to change just a little and then say "this is where I want to be; enough with the self-improvement" related to Buddhist practice making that more continuous.


If you think Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, versus what I'm describing it as, then you might be inclined to take it in different ways altogether.  If it's taken as something to be "thought out" then momentary practice could be de-emphasized.  If practice of conventional morality is going to be good enough, along with doing some chanting or whatever else, that might work well pursued part-time.  The starting point matters; how one takes it all.  It's probably as well to be open to shifting those underlying premises over time, just in case.  Obviously I'm seeing the side related to experiencing Buddhism as a formal religion.  To be clear I was only a monk for two months, but I do live in Bangkok now, for the last dozen years, a part of a Buddhist family and Buddhist society.

my daughter (now 6) showed me how to meditate ("tam samadhi") recently; it was cool

All of this probably captures enough of how I see it.  None of it is really supported here, by core text citation, or detailed explanation that could be even a little convincing.  I once pursued Buddhism as religion and philosophy in university studies, obtaining two degrees in the process, and it soured me a little in setting it all up like a research paper project.  That's not a bad approach though; it's a good way to sort through a range of different ideas presented in different ways.  It just doesn't make much sense without a lot of emphasis on personal life-practice and perspective.

You either try it and parts work for you or you might as well be reading Scientology (which actually is kind of interesting; it sounds like it should work, but it probably doesn't).  If you put neither in practice you might as well be binge-watching television show seasons on Netflix, or reading about rock climbing without ever rock climbing, whatever it is.  The ideas can be pleasant in some formulations though, so maybe just leaving it as that, as an un-examined form of poetry, could make for an aesthetic experience.  To me that's not really Buddhism then, but in some much more limited sense it still might be.

On being a temporary monk in Thailand

I was once ordained as a Buddhist monk in Thailand for over two months.  That was eight years ago now, back in the end of 2007, from November to January.  Since I've been mentioning a bit about that related to an expat forum discussion I'll pass on some of the same ideas here.  Of course this will be far from complete, just talking around where it happens to lead.

Why do Thais ordain as temporary monks?

at the kuti, residence area

This is actually a common part of their culture, with origins in the original, older Buddhist tradition.  Of course Thai Buddhism is part of the Theravada tradition, the older main branch of Buddhism, versus Mahayana and Vajrayana.  This isn't going to be an intro to Buddhism post though, just about my experiences, so people interested in such a thing can check the main Wikipedia Buddhism article, then go on to read another hundred sources to see what that left out or got wrong.

In the original form someone could ordain as a monk for the rainy season, then go back to lay-life.  The intention would seem to be a spiritual retreat period but it's conceivable this also enabled a more practical aspect of providing those people a place to stay and food, from alms round practice.  Given the context seems to imply it related to agricultural workers they would have already had a place to stay, and things should have went well enough with the farming that basic sustenance shouldn't have been an issue, but who knows really.  It was a different time and place, or given how it could have evolved over time maybe different times and places.

In the modern form in Thailand it's about accumulating merit for the family, more or less.  Some people--men only; females can be a type of nun but not a monk, with one exception in a splinter group in Australia, but that's a different story--even ordain immediately after the death of a family member related to this.  The point is that merit--good karma--doesn't just accumulate for that person, but also goes to family members, so even after death it's a way to support family that has passed, along with merit accumulated from memorial services, and giving gifts to monks.

  

How effective can these rituals be, in terms of generating merit?  There's no quantifying that, but there are ways to sort of add more "spiritual power" to effort, so a bit of a scale can emerge.  If "higher" monks take part these are more highly regarded, sort of "spiritually accomplished" individuals, so having a ceremony involving some such monks is thought to have more effect.  How would one know how senior, or highly regarded, or spiritually advanced a monk is?  They actually have ranks related to such a thing, and of course older monks in general have more personally accumulated merit from their own practice, one of many factors related.  All of this is drifting off the point a bit, though, that of covering some basics.

So the short version is that taking part benefits the monk (maybe not so much in this life, or maybe so, hard to be clear on that), and also their family.  The family receives a "merit / karma" benefit, which even extends to dead family members who are long since no longer around, or on to the generation not yet born.  Or at least that's one part of the story, a literal faith that relates to generated merit.

A special case, ordaining as a novice (samanane)

The idea that one might be a samanane or monk novice is an unusual special case.  Thais seem to only use this position for children, although I can't say for sure there is no convention related to an adult becoming a samanane, but I'm not familiar with any.  In the original form this is exactly what the role was about.  I won't go into details but apparently this came about originally (per the stories, and this is just my own take) related to the Buddha establishing a role for his own son.  Of course I'm not as clear that this was the direct cause, or just an existing role his own son came to take up, as a child.

It seems like special tourism programs in Thailand (at least one) use "ordaining" an adult male as a novice for the purpose of giving a foreigner a taste of the experience without drawing on full ordination, or altering existing practices to set up monastic experience as tourism.  Since I don't have a lot of background related to this I'm only mentioning it here as an interesting exception, and one that helps fill in a bit about this novice role.  Thais would likely not be so clear on this distinction since it's unheard of for adults to become novices, so I would expect that they would naturally assume these people were monks.

Foreign monks; special issues

Visas to stay in Thailand aren't really part of the potential benefit.  I know one long-term monk here (mostly online) that goes through the same visa issues others do, resolved mostly through use of educational visas.  As related background, I know one other layman expat using the same approach, here as a long term student.

Really all the same context of being a monk applies as to foreigners just as it does to native Thai monks; there is essentially no difference.  Some complications come up related to language, of course, especially related to learning the rules for a monk, since direct instruction on the rules becomes more complicated.  I'll cover all that in a later section.

The ordination ceremony requires a good bit of chanting in Pali, but since that's a language that Thais don't speak either it's not so different to learn by rote for a foreigner as for a Thai.  Thai is a tonal language but Pali is really not, so in that one sense learning random sounds in Pali should be a lot easier for a foreigner, compared to if one tried to do the same in Thai.


It's not directly related to this experience but I did study Sanskrit quite a bit, four four semesters, or for 12 credits at the University of Hawaii in grad school, and those two languages are very closely related (Pali and Sanskrit), with a lot of overlap.  Sanskrit is more or less a parent language that evolved to become Pali, which evolved to become Hindi, so unless I've got that completely wrong--which probably isn't so unlikely--Sanskrit is Hindi's grandmother.

While I'm at it lets do a short tangent about how Pali and Sanskrit sounds relate to those in English and Thai, even though it's hardly related (it is related to the chanting, I guess).  The tones are out, which I already said, with the main difference left relating to consonant sound differences.  One vowel sound wasn't completely familiar, as I recall, but in general those wouldn't be so hard to get close to saying right with a background in either other language.  At first in studying Sanskrit I really was trying to get the consonant sounds right, but later it became evident we could just botch that part and the professor didn't really care, so I never really did master them.  

Maybe I could be clearer about what I'm even talking about though.  The main difference related to "aspiration," to the slight "h" sound or air release that corresponds to some consonant sounds.  I don't want to go too far with this, but notice that when one says a normal "t" sound in English (test, tone, take, to, any words) there is a slight hiss of air following the "t," but when pronouncing a "b" instead there isn't (bat, boy, bin--try it an you'll see).  Really it would be possible for someone to pronounce a non-aspirated "t" sound, to cut that part off, or an aspirated "b" sound, to add more slight hiss adjoined after to that.  This is what I mean; Sanskrit and Pali use more options with both, they break up the sounds into more of them.

Obviously if I could get that wrong for a Sanskrit class a monk wasn't going to stop an ordination ceremony and fix my pronunciation for that, though.  Compared to a Thai I would have a slight accent, perhaps, since the breakdown of consonants is a little different in Thai too, but since the chanting was in Pali a Thai would probably be pronouncing Pali with a Thai accent too, related to other sound differences.

Monks and money starting point:  they can't possess it

I'll go into monk's rules a lot more, and drift back to some more general background and a conclusion, but in short one of the main rules of being a monk is that a monk can't possess money.  Any guesses as to others?  Of course they have to wear robes, but there are so many rules about the robes it sort of seems assumed and prior to those.  


One interesting rule is that a monk can't physically touch a woman.  No problem; reasonable enough, right?  It's interesting how they would define what "touch" means.  What if a monk handed something to a woman, and accidentally touched her hand in the process?  They've got that covered.  A monk can't hand anything directly to a woman, or receive anything directly from one, so they are taking that rule fairly literally and seriously.  Monks don't eat dinner either; they can only eat a breakfast and lunch, sometimes more strictly interpreted as only one meal a day, but the formal form is they can't sit down to eat lunch after noon.  In theory they could sit down at 11:55 and there's no last word on when the meal needs to be wrapped up but stretching the rules is against the informal rules, the normal interpretation.

Back to the issue of owning money, and potential financial benefit, monks do receive money as contributions, in spite of a clear rule restricting them from possessing or spending it.  Strange, right?  One part of that is about contributing to a temple, sort of, but in Thailand monks have some degree of expenses to cover, so they're not quite as literal and strict about that rule as for the one about touching women.  Of course their expenses are very low, but they do have some very legitimate ones.  For example, some temples charge the monks for their use of electricity, with the understanding that with completely unrestricted access they might waste it (leave lights on, or who knows what).  Cell phones might seem a frivolous expense, although monks do seem to typically own those, but something like eyeglasses or medical treatment seems a valid use of money.  I've heard that medical treatments are covered by society, I guess by the government at certain hospitals, so there may or may not be some gray area remaining.  I didn't need money in the two months I was a monk, but then people did keep contributing things, so it wasn't like I would need to go to Tesco and buy a bar of soap.

There are examples that make the Thai news of monks exploiting their role for financial benefit, or spending money improperly, but my impression (guess?) is that these are exceptions.  Funneling some limited amount of money back to a family may not be so isolated, even if technically still not ok, but most monks probably wouldn't have access to enough money to waste a lot of it.  Given that what most do with what they do receive isn't much of an issue, if they really need a cell phone and such, although I could understand some people thinking they really shouldn't own modern electronics like that.  Others in the main temples, tourist centers, primary ceremonial centers, or probably those within the Dhammakaya sect in general probably do have access to more money (sort of the "Southern Baptist" version of Thai Buddhism, to go ahead and smear two religious sects at the same time), so it could become an issue if the access is there.

What other benefits would there be to being a monk?  That's really a separate issue, a bit of a tangent here.  I'd already mentioned that if one holds a literal form of religious Buddhist faith this ties to accumulating merit / positive karma.  Some form of spiritual development could be seen as the same thing or else as relatively separate from that.   I had a good bit of history studying Buddhism so it really related mostly to that, personally, a follow-up to other types of exposure, enabled by becoming a part of a Thai family.  Or maybe someone would just like the lifestyle.  I knew a long-term foreign monk at another temple that stayed on for that purpose, or so it seemed to me; he liked it.  I'll break all this out in another section.

Monastic life as a lifestyle choice

When I first became a monk my wife's aunt mentioned that people might become monks because they like the lifestyle, which seemed a little strange to me.  

Who would want a lifestyle defined most by over 227 rules one has to adhere to (more on that in a later section), covering significant restrictions like wearing normal clothing or physically touching a woman, or eating after noon.  There are also a lot of minor rules, for example a monk is not permitted to drink something while standing (or so I was told by other novices; maybe not).  Of course it wouldn't be a serious issue to break the minor rules (like drinking something while standing), and to some extent monks do possess money, going against one of the main rules, covered in this already.  

After being a monk I could see what she meant.  It was hard adjusting to the schedule and the restrictions but after a month it all became a bit more normal, and along with some of those choices and options some responsibilities drop away.  A monk doesn't need to worry about most expenses, like food or housing, or much about their jobs (although many had harder jobs than a lot of lay-people, work that would be somewhat demanding and perhaps even stressful, requiring long hours).  Financial concerns would mostly drop away.  Again I'm not sure how that works for medical care, which may or may not get complicated.  One demand I didn't foresee, although I should have after studying for a month to repeat the ordination vows in Pali language, was that it takes a lot of work to learn and retain those endless chants they do in ceremonies.

There are other pros and cons, and lots of related factors, but I could see how in the end some people might like it as a lifestyle choice.  The rules are a bit much, though.  Lets go into that in the next part separately.

Vinaya, 227 rules

Here's a good summary reference for those 227 rules:  http://en.dhammadana.../vinaya/227.htm

Since I don't want to write a lot really explaining what those are--too much for me to take on in a summary opinion based piece--I'll limit this to my own experience of them, or really only part of it, since they were the main background for all of my experience.  This part gets a little strange; I never learned them when I was a monk (which again was eight years ago now).  They covered the main ones with me, or seemed to; it would be hard to narrow down what "main ones" really means, even though they broken into sets.

The reason for that gap in my training was simple enough.  They sent the new monks, or temporary monks, to informal classes on what not to do, but as a foreigner I wasn't going to catch that training in Thai language, and they weren't going to translate it for me.  It's hard to say to what extent the average Thai has already picked up the background of those rules.  Of course they know that they're not supposed to touch women and can't eat after noon but I'm not sure how many of the other rules would be familiar to most.

Some of the rules they don't really follow.  We've covered the background on #17 and #18 of the nissagiyas (I'm referring to that reference list in the external link), not to accept or use money, and they sort of do that, to a limited extent.  #1 on that list, not to keep an extra robe for more than 10 days at a time, they would also routinely ignore.  In practice they really don't store a lot of extra robes, although I don't know the actual convention for limiting it.  Maybe most would never keep more than one spare or something such.  

One might wonder the point of having a spare, or more than one spare, so I'll drift just a little into that.  The main answer seems obvious enough; eventually one is going to need to wash the robe, maybe even frequently, and it would be strange to wear it wet after that, so a spare would be really handy while that dried.  Another concern may not be so obvious:  they come in different colors.  Crazy, right?  In general the Thai city monks wear a bright orange robe and the Thai country monks wear a dark orange, sort of rust-colored robe.  Someone would not keep different robes to look the part, to dress in fashion, depending on where they are, of course, although monks do tend to travel more than one might expect, at least some of them.  Somehow it's also normal enough for Bangkok monks to wear a darker color for formal occassions, to switch from the neon orange to a more beautiful closer-to-rust color.  Of course that does get a little odd; monk formal fashion.

One more detail to this tangent, then back to the main ideas:  someone gave me such a robe once, a beautiful, formal ceremonial version.  I did like the color, but was at a loss for what to do with it.  I went to only one really, really formal ceremony, the kind of thing a brand new or temporary monk absolutely doesn't attend, but I went in my normal robe for that.  I stood out, but then I already stood out for being a foreigner, and for not knowing those long chants, and for being generally clueless.  I already had two robes, so technically I was already one over what I was allowed to own, with no real use for that robe, so I ended up just giving it away to another monk.

Essentially all the rest of those rules the monks really do practice, but some of those get a little vague.  One says to only shower twice a month, unless dirty, but that's open to judgement, and monks tend to keep clean now.  It's as well since it's hot here in Thailand.

One of the other new monks, the temporary, two-week duration kind, told me it was against those rules to smell a flower, and I asked a senior monk and he said it wasn't.  I just read the list and nothing about that is on there.  I didn't see a rule about not drinking while standing either, which the other monks said you can't do; funny how those minor rules inconsistencies might work out.  They explained to me that violating a minor rule isn't really a big deal, or one that somehow seems out of date, no longer as applicable, although of course that leads back to a need for learning which are most minor.  Most of it they really did apply very literally, with a lot of observed conventions that restricted monks to coming across as a bit reserved, sort of the intention of many of the rules.

Monastic culture; informal practices

A lot of those rules do cover things that might seem like cultural elements, about manner, or even thoughts one should have, like not to covet things, or talk with your mouth full, some relatively minor details.  What a monk can or can't do and how they behave really goes beyond that.  A main example:  a monk can't wai to someone first.  The Thai "wai" is a hand gesture, pressing hands together in front of yourself, that looks like a Christian prayer gesture, used as a greeting here.  But that's the short version; it can also mean "I'm sorry," and surely there's lots more to say about it.  The Indian version is pretty close to that, maybe with the hands just held a little lower, with arms at less of an angle, and I'd assume they use it differently.  And they say "namaste," a nice touch, which I've been told means "I show respect to the god in you."

To get back to the point, younger people wai to older people first in Thai culture.  If you do that wrong it's a bit of a faux pas.  It's not quite that simple; someone clearly higher in status shouldn't wai to someone lower in status first, or maybe at all in lots of situations, so for example you don't wai to the taxi drivers, at all.  As a foreigner in Thailand people don't expect you to get it right so a "farang" can just wai when they think it's a good idea, or only wai back.  Or foreigners can really apply it as they like, nodding instead, it's not a big deal how it goes in their case.  For a monk it's really simple; you don't wai to anyone, unless they wai to you.

As for the rest it's mostly about coming across as dispassionate, not showing anger or excitement, being polite, etc.  The rules point to this and other informal conventions carry on with that.  Who knows if I did all that perfectly.  I was lucky to stay in a residence area (or "kuti") with a number of monks that spoke pretty good English, as younger Thais in general do, so I was probably doing ok based on their guidance.

In conclusion

This was one of the most interesting experiences of my life.  I had studied Buddhism for 15 years prior to being a monk and there wasn't that much overlap between that knowledge and related personal development and that time and experience as a monk.  That I didn't expect, that monks really weren't talking about core Buddhism all that much, and if one was a monk and tried to that it might not get far.  Rules, rituals, and stories about the Buddha's life were the opposite, those did come up.  But then I was a "city monk."  If I'd stayed instead at a forest temple dedicated to Buddhist meditation training and learning things might have been different.


I did go on a meditation retreat in that time, out of the city.  I'd been practicing meditation daily at a temple beside the one I lived in, at a meditation center at Wat Mahadat, so the point was more to get exposure to some of those ideas.  This isn't completely unconventional, by the way, for a monk to travel or take up different purposes, but for a temporary monk probably it would be.  One foreign monk in Bangkok runs a meditation and learning group, just because that's what he does.  That stay out of the city, the meditation retreat, was very unusual because I stayed at a Dhammakaya sect temple, which is quite a bit different than the mainstream sect I was in, but given the length of this passage it seems as well to not go into those differences.

I'll pass on one more story about an experience and just leave this at that.  I remember one morning, early out on alms round, walking barefoot through the alleys near the temple.  This was normal for me, one of my favorite parts of the day, although it was odd waking up at six for that.  Alms round had an unusual feel to it, sort of quiet and almost somber, but peaceful.  


I was walking down a dark wet alley, of course wearing a robe, carrying only the covered bowl that monks use, and I saw a very small  lighted Christmas tree in the window of a closed shop.  I don't think it was actually Christmas day but it was close to that, and it might as well have been; monks don't celebrate Thai holidays, never mind foreign ones.  It sort of hit me:  what am I doing?  It wasn't a terribly sad feeling, since I was over a month into acclimating at that point, but somehow I felt all the more out of place.


It was my time to be a monk though, foreign to my original culture but a normal part of leading a slightly unusual life.  By the end of that alley I walked past someone familiar, an older woman that had been offering food to feed me somewhat regularly for those few weeks.  We didn't talk, there was really no personal bond, but to the limited extent that type of exchange was personal--which was really the opposite of the point, more about a religious role and ritual--I was grateful.  I said the short prayer of blessing Thai monks say and walked on, back to my morning routine at the temple.