Don't censor art

re: "The Buddha, Ultraman and a middle way" (BP, September 10)

Dear editor,

In her thoughtful opinion piece "The Buddha, Ultraman and a middle way" (BP, September 10), Atiya Achakulwisut makes a sensible case for a tolerant middle way, but we have good reason to think that the Buddha would have made an even stronger case for tolerance, one that actively encourages the reinvigoration of received wisdom from tradition, including the critical reappraisal of his own insights.

 The Buddha had the good sense to refuse any claim to be infallible. His life story is of searching for deeper understanding, with the few final meta-truths being such as how difficult and uncertain, how impermanent, is the path to knowledge, something that our best physics continues to admit today. The hardcore conservatives of Thai Buddhism, a religion allayed for centuries to power politics that hardly follows the compassionate teachings of the Buddha's insights, seriously misrepresent the Buddha's teachings when they claim themselves to be infallible interpreters of his wisdom, in which honest admission of uncertainty is an important element. The Buddha, in his Kalama Sutta, explicitly encourages critical questioning, including of his own teachings. It appears, therefore, profoundly unBuddhist for anyone to claim infallible insight into any of Gotama's ideas, when he himself rejected such limiting rigidity that rejects improved understanding by others.

 If the Buddha were alive and seeking to further deepen his understanding today, would he still give credence to such things as rebirth? Would he still accept the cultural baggage of the Hindu theism that prevailed when he formed his ideas? We can critically discuss based on the extant texts, but sensible disciples on the path to improved understanding will admit the limits of our own ability to know. And to claim an infallibility that intolerantly rejects other views is the height of hubris, which is not a Buddhist virtue.

The young student's paintings do not seem to me particularly great art, but they offer her creative reimagination for today of an aspect of her Thai cultural heritage, which she has every right to express. That the paintings clearly do offend some people cannot be a good reason to censor them merely for pushing viewers to reflect a little more deeply on values that they profess to cherish.

 Those who find such critical reflection offensive are free either to be offended, to ignore the cause, or to respond to it as intelligent, mature adults. Which response would the Buddha have chosen?

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on September 12, 2019, under the title "Don't censor art" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1748164/dont-censor-art