In this essay I divide Thai intellectuals into three broad categories, but I will pay particular emphasis on the mainstream intellectual current because it played a formative role in Sulak's intellectual development. I realize that I am risking oversimplification, and am aware of the complexity and differences within each intellectual current. In any case, the three paths may be summarized as follows: the first promotes and consolidates the power of the ruling elites; the second cultivates the power of the people; and the third attempts to liberate all human beings from sufferings or at least mitigate their sufferings.

The Mainstream Intellectuals

 They believe and attempt to make others believe that a hierarchical society with political structures that nurture the centralization or totalization of power is inherently good and thus is appropriate for the Thai people and kingdom. Many leading mainstream intellectuals were members of the royal family such as Kings Rama IV and Rama V, Prince Damrong, and M.R. Kukrit Pramoj. In general, mainstream intellectuals have been prepared to "construct" or "alter" the truth to produce a regime of truth that bolsters the ‘naturalization' of social hierarchies and political centralization. For instance, there were attempts to make the Thai ruling elites and kingdom appear more ‘civilized', to monumentalize the ‘successes' of the kings of the Chakkri dynasty (e.g., in ‘protecting' the country's sovereignty and contributing to the ‘progress' of the kingdom), and to make the era of absolute monarchy appear like a golden age in Thai history.

The belief that a hierarchical society is inherently good is linked to the assertion that the centralization of power in the hands of a single person is the form of governance most suitable for the kingdom; that is, it is the "Thai form of governance." Mainstream intellectuals explained that blood and Buddhism make the ruling elites virtuous and principled. According to this logic, the king should exercise unaccountable power, and if there should be checks and balances, it is the king who should check and balance the power of his officials. Mainstream intellectuals also tried to convince the people to believe that because of Buddhism the Thai state and society are compassionate. Those in the upper rungs of the social hierarchy are inclined to treat their subordinates ethically. The idea is that the superior-subordinate relationship is like the one between the parent and the child. These are just some of the attempts to make social inequality respectable or legitimate. I realize that mainstream intellectuals come in various shades and hues, some emphasizing on blood, ethnism, etc. more than other considerations. But they share a common basic assumption: human beings were not born equally good and capable, and they lack equal capacity to learn or become ‘cultivated.' Therefore, only the members of the upper-class are morally principled. And so they should also serve as the ruling elites. The absolute majority of citizens are trapped in a cycle of ignorance, poverty, and suffering, beseeching the compassion and tutelage of the ruling class.

In the hands of mainstream intellectuals, the Thai country and society are essentially good, or goodness is an essentialized quality of the Thai country and society-i.e., goodness as "Thai-ness." Therefore, and this is a bit redundant, the Thai kingdom is good because of Thai-ness. As long as the purity of Thai-ness is maintained and protected, the kingdom will remain good indefinitely. Following this train of logic, any unwanted change or problem in the kingdom is largely the result of the betrayal of Thai-ness or the absorption of undesirable foreign elements.

Mainstream intellectuals pay a lot of attention to justice but it is a form of justice without equality. Put another way, equality is only an intra-group condition. Members of the ruling class are equal, but they are superior to the majority of the population. (Equality also refers to the equal right to be unequal.) Given this condition, the kingdom's ruling elites are the source of justice in society. As for liberty, mainstream intellectuals stress that there's already ample liberty in Thai-ness: the liberation of the mind through the practice of the Dhamma.

Sulak was once a member of the mainstream intellectual current. He had confidently treaded on this path. Ultimately, he began to criticize (often violently) the pillars of Thai-ness, seeing them as deviating from the idealism of Thai-ness; that is, they had failed to establish peace and prosperity for the people and to make the kingdom "good." Therefore, aside from critiquing, Sulak wanted the pillars of the kingdom to function according to the ideals of Thai-ness. And this could only be brought about by promoting accountability and transparency-by opening up institutions to criticism so they would be able to have reflexivity. This especially applies to the two pillars that are considered to be the "heart" of Thai-ness: the monarchy and Buddhism. Over the decades, however, Sulak sensed that the main institutions of the Thai kingdom had made disappointing progress, and therefore he decided to part company with the mainstream intellectuals.

Despite the elitism he still shares with other mainstream intellectuals, Sulak's path is marked by three distinct and ‘de-stabilizing' features. One, Sulak never wanted to be at the center of political and economic power. Thus, he has no reason to serve or flatter the powers-that-be and their regime of truth. Two, Sulak is highly ambitious in terms of accumulating wisdom and spirituality: he is a lover of knowledge. Given his expanding network of acquaintances and colleagues (his kalyanamitta) as well as the rapidly changing conditions of Thai society, Sulak felt that the explanation and understanding based on Thai-ness were highly inadequate to cope with myriad of problems. A revolution in terms of knowledge was necessary to deal with the looming ‘crisis.' This entailed criticizing the mainstream regime of truth and the quest for new knowledge(s). By nature a ‘rebel', Sulak has therefore effectively performed his role as an oppositional figure. His objective is to radicalize, rethink, and reform Thai-ness. And three, Sulak's increasing exposure to individuals from all walks of life (especially the poor and the marginalized whose wisdom and way of life struck him deeply) both at the national and international levels, stimulated him to completely reject the structural hierarchy of Thai society and its accompanying form of relations.

It is possible to say that when Sulak realized the flaws of mainstream thinking and perceived the potentialities and power of the people more clearly, he began to decenter the core of Thai-ness. This decentering meant a new recentering-moving away from the Nation (i.e., the stance of Luang Wichit) and militarism and ethnism (i.e., M.R. Kukrit Pramoj's) and moving towards Buddhism. Sulak elevated Buddhism above the Nation and the Monarchy. He argues that the Nation is not homogeneous, but filled with diverse ethnic and cultural groups. Sulak also argues that the People is at the core of the Thai nation and Thai-ness.

Additionally, Sulak tends to give importance to intellectuals or what he calls "the youth", which isn't really about age but about the ‘vitality' to help others-some are more ‘youthful' when it comes to helping others. Although Sulak situates the ordinary people above the mainstream intellectuals, he still feels that they need assistance or help from "the youth" of the kingdom. Therefore, it is one of Sulak's objectives to help ‘produce' intellectuals or ‘youthful people' to help others.

Sulak does not shun ‘foreign' ideas. He even feels that there can be a fruitful mélange between ‘foreign' and ‘local' ideas. For instance, he does not reject liberalism-unlike mainstream intellectuals who feel that it will bring into question the hierarchical relations they deem suitable for Thai society. However, Sulak finds that Thai society is largely ignorant in blending foreign and local elements for it lacks the rudimentary skill to distinguish good from bad.

At present, Sulak still sees Buddhism and the Monarchy as core institutions of Thai-ness-and will continue to do so in the future. Needless to say, Sulak supports the Monarchy but not the mainstream ‘mentality' or ‘rationality' that comes with it, e.g., the idea of a fixed social hierarchy.

Redefining Buddhism

Sulak offers an alternative interpretation of Buddhism that once again differs from the mainstream intellectuals'. He ‘globalizes' and ‘universalizes' Buddhism, portraying it as the proper path on which the world should travel. Put differently, he has promoted the awareness and understanding of Buddhism at the national and the international levels, and, rejecting the mundane-supramundane binary opposition, Sulak has consistently argued that Buddhism offers solutions to worldly affairs. And when Sulak refers to Buddhism, he generally means a blending of the teachings of the different sects with the Theravadan line. It is also well known that Sulak sees the sangha as a model for democracy. Lastly, Sulak evaluates other individuals from the perspective of Buddhism; that is, to what extent they uphold or are a model of morality, mindfulness, and wisdom.

Redefining ‘Thai Governance'

Sulak has contended that Thai democracy should have the characteristics of a village republic, should use features of Thai rural villages as points of reference. Mainstream intellectuals, on the contrary, refer to the father-child model of the Sukhothai era. Thus, and this is readily apparent, Sulak is an advocate of political decentralization, of loosening the stranglehold of the capital city over ‘the peripheries.' As such his position is antithetical to the mainstream intellectuals'.

Redefining the King

Like mainstream intellectuals, Sulak sees the Monarchy as highly important to the Thai nation in terms of maintaining continuity in the society and of being a locus of the unity of the people. Sulak feels that the king under constitutional monarchy may play a crucial role in privately advising, criticizing, and cautioning the government when necessary. On the whole, however, the king should maintain political neutrality. Also, he believes that the monarchy should be a beacon of light in terms of ethics and morality. Nevertheless, as implied above, Sulak does not feel that the Monarchy is sacred or above criticism like mainstream intellectuals (esp. M.R. Kukrit Pramoj) do. Only a transparent and publicly accountable Monarchy will make it truly respectable, Sulak insists. Furthermore, he asserts that the Monarchy should play a leading role in fostering and cultivating democracy (e.g., the decentralization of power). Mainstream intellectuals (again, Kukrit is a good example), on the other hand, favor the leader/king having absolute power. All things considered, Sulak's path has clearly moved beyond that of mainstream intellectuals when it comes to the Monarchy.

The fact that Sulak opposes the political centralization of power and rejects the fixed hierarchy of society signifies his most important dismissal of the Thai-ness advocated by mainstream intellectuals. Although Sulak still openly praises many mainstream intellectuals, his intellectual path increasingly criss-crosses those of the remaining two intellectual currents.

The second intellectual path is comprised of those who believe that human beings are all equal, and therefore they should equally share the benefits and the losses. They also disapprove of political centralization-including the various shades of absolutism. This group may be further subdivided into three strands. One, intellectuals who believe in equality and democracy, but feel that the country still has a long way to go before reaching that destination. As such, they have to take part in the system, to reform it from within. An example of this is Puey Ungphakorn. Two, intellectuals who struggle for social, economic, and political equality. They are often influenced by socialism or Marxism. A good example is Pridi Banomyong. Sulak holds both Puey and Pridi in high esteem, while not fully agreeing with their ideas. And three, intellectuals who struggle for social equality which is inextricable from the liberation of the mind and wisdom as well as political democratization.

The third group of intellectuals is comprised of the ordained who are well versed in the Dhamma, have written a lot of books, and see Buddhism as offering solutions to both private and public problems. Leading examples are Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, the Venerable Payutto, and Phra Phaisan Visalo. The ordained intellectuals are not only devoted to the dissemination of Buddhism but also serve as a living testimony that a life liberated from the globalizing culture of consumerism through morality, mindfulness, and wisdom is a good life. Sulak has played a prominent role in helping to broaden public awareness of the works by these intellectuals, locally and internationally, in making Buddhism a relevant part of life worldwide.

To sum up, there are three broad strands of intellectual path in Thai society. Each path is marked by different assumptions, priorities, and objectives, though they may also overlap. Why then is the mainstream intellectual current still dominant in the present? Why do the majority of Thais still adopt the orthodox lenses to interpret or engage with the world? A possible answer is that these orthodoxies buttress political centralization (e.g., various shades of absolutism), which has been a dominant feature of the Thai state since the reign of King Rama V. It is therefore a major responsibility of intellectuals in the present and future to continue to redefine Thai-ness (to think along with and against Sulak.)

Saichon Sattayanurak