7 July 2003

It’s well-known the prime minister is a keen and knowledgeable Buddhist, and especially an admirer of the late, great thinker, Buddhadasa. Almost exactly five years ago (13 June 1999), he was asked to talk to a Buddhist foundation about Buddhadasa and politics. At that time the Thai Rak Thai party was not yet one year old, and not yet so well known.

Thaksin told the audience he was inspired by Buddhadasa’s example to challenge old ways of thinking and dare to think up new ideas. He quoted Buddhadasa’s opinion that “politics is about organising people in society to live together peacefully”. The problem is, Thaksin went on, politics in fact is about the pursuit of private interests, but politics in Buddhadasa’s ideal should be about the pursuit of social benefit. Buddhadasa thought parliament should be an assembly of sataburut, men of moral integrity, free of self-interest and craving. Then the whole parliament would share the same vision of social benefit. The members would have no cause to argue and fight with one another. The society would progress.

Thaksin regretted the Thai parliament has been influenced by the British parliamentary tradition of debate in the style of lawyers contesting a case. Ideally, there would be no opposition. But Thaksin also related Buddhadasa’s view that criticism could be valuable:

“Buddhadasa wanted politicians to practice creative politics, stop destroying one another, and focus on ending corruption. He wanted politicians and those involved in politics to understand the word gratitude (katanyu) which has a very broad meaning. He said, we must have gratitude towards our enemies, because if we had no enemies we would not realise our full capability. Only when we have enemies, do we have to improve ourselves. The idea of having gratitude towards our enemies shows how broad Buddhadasa’s mind was. He could go that far.”

Thaksin went on to tell his audience that he read Buddhadasa’s works all the time. He noted that Buddhadasa had talked about the forces of globalisation forty years ago. Then Thaksin begged his audience’s permission to tell a personal story:

“I’d like to talk just a little about myself and Buddhadasa’s teachings, something which illustrates Buddhadasa’s philosophy and its benefit for society. This is something that really happened and had an effect on me.

Some of you may have read his book, Danger of I, which he translated into English. He wanted people to avoid having a life which bites its owner. He used these words, a life which bites its owner. It’s a phrase which has a lot of meaning. He divided sickness into three types. The Buddha classified into two types, physical and mental. But Buddhadasa realised that in our day mental includes psychological, and there could be confusion. So he classified into physical, mental and spiritual. There can be spiritual sickness which in English is called spiritual disease.

I admit I had it once. I suffered from spiritual sickness. At that time I was deputy prime minister in Banharn’s government. I suffered this spiritual sickness for a whole year, until I took a rest from politics for a bit. It was my wife who told me I was sick. But she didn’t know what the problem was. The word for my sickness at that time is ‘self’.

Buddhadasa used the word self. In Latin, it’s ego. In Greek it’s xentikon which translates as centre. That is, someone who puts himself on a pedestal. Someone who thinks of me and only me. Someone who is emotional, and in spiritual turmoil. That was my condition at the time.

My wife said, you’re sick for sure. She used the word ‘self’. I began to think I really was sick. So I went to see a doctor. That doctor was Phra Issaramuni, who is a disciple of Buddhadasa. He follows Buddhadasa’s teachings very closely. He made me listen to a sermon. When I made an appointment with him, I didn’t say what it was about. But I turned up and he gave me a sermon. He talked about tathata [reality as perceived by a mind released from craving], about Paticcasamuppada [dependent origination, causation especially of suffering], about Idapaccayata [mutual causality], about me and only me, putting oneself on a pedestal.

I brightened up immediately. Before that my memory, which is usually very good, had not been so sharp. Just like Buddhadasa said, if we are in turmoil, and our mind is not clear, then we lose composure, and wisdom deserts us. But if we have a clear mind, then composure and wisdom return.

I got better quickly after that. My life was a lot happier. Thinking was easy. My memory was sharp. I had a clear mind. The message of this is, the really important knowledge is like just one handful of leaves. If we can understand it, our lives can be very happy and unstressed. We have wisdom and are able to solve problems.”

Reading this speech five years down the road highlights yet again how much Thaksin is a bundle of paradoxes. He is inspired by a philosopher who argued politics would improve only when practised by people so detached from material desires they can concentrate totally on benefit to society. But in reality, Thai politics is founded absolutely on money. There’s not one poor, detached person in parliament. Thaksin is leader because he has an exceptional vision, but also because he has an exceptional amount of money.

Perhaps this is why he fell prey to the “spiritual sickness” he relates in the personal tale. If so, he deserves our sympathy. We should not underestimate how much he is a thoughtful man. And we should hope he remembers the experience, and its lessons.

Chang Noi’s back articles are at www.geocities.com/changnoi2