no easy answers...

not so long ago an article appeared in The Guardian regarding the 2000 foetuses found in a Bangkok Temple. the article told of how the discovery had prompted a push toward political reform regarding Thailand's abortion laws which was subsequently being hindered by prominent figures in the Thai Sangha who held considerable political (and public) sway.

my initial response upon reading the article was i couldn't help but feel in this instant a dogmatic and rigid adherence to orthodoxy was blindsiding the chance for compassionate expression of orthopraxy. discussing the matter with Kyoshin however, he quite rightly pointed out the situation is in all liklihood more complex than such a response would imply. the influence religion holds over politics, the deep cultural imprint of abortion as taboo held by many throughout the various stratas of society and many other issues all play their part. and certainly, it is all too easy for me to offer a skewered analysis bearing little real understanding of the situation as of course i am an outsider to such cultural perspectives and values.

it does nonetheless throw up certain murky questions for me. i'm strongly against forms of theocracy but neither do i believe one's religion should remain cut off or seperated from one's politics. how much influence should one bear upon the other then? i guess ultimately it's when either threatens to inhibit an individual's freedom that i feel uncomfortable - eg. yes, i believe the taking of a life is wrong and that abortion falls under this category but neither do i believe in forcing adherence to such a belief. and what if by denying the means to legal, safe abortion more than just the one life is being put at risk?

the reality of it is that prohibition's quite clearly not acting as an effective deterrent and in  many cases, placing more lives at risk than need be. wouldn't education be a worthier, more compassionate attempt (perhaps though, this is naive of me)?

i don't want to accuse senior figures of the Thai Sangha of somehow lacking compassion, which, given the extreme liklihood that their levels of attainment are way, way vaster than mine would be grossly arrogant, disrespectful and just plain wrong of me to say. at the same time though, i can't get alongside their stance on this issue.

the other question then i guess, concerns when orthodoxy clashes with orthopraxy. the fact that abortion is considered by many to be such a taboo is due to the direct influence that Buddhism holds for the majority of Thai society. and it is the perfectly valid and correct stance in terms of orthodoxy.

.....and yet. how do we move forward when what is written and accepted as the authentic stance on a given matter threatens to clash with what we feel as being right, and even maybe hinder cultivation of compassion? it's a valid and important question imo but one offering no easy answers.

namu amida butsu