From: ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong)
Subject: Re: How to Wai' Phra
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: soc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:34:50 GMT

tstil@Auspex.COM (Tim Stilwell) writes:


> Sawasdee Khrup Tuk Kon

> Can somebody clarify these behavior questions for me please?

> I know that we Buddhists are supposed to wai' all phra (monks) because we
                                           ^^^^ 
> are showing respect for the robe.

According to our preliminarily agreed transliteration system, it should be
written Waai".

> I also know that we have to keep our heads lower than theirs as another
> sign of respect.  For example:

> 	1. Don't reach over their heads for any reason.
>	
>	2. Sit on the floor if they are seated in chairs.

>	3. Sit with our feet pointed to the side and behind if they
>           are sitting cross-legged.

> I also know that we have to grap^ (prostrate) 3 times to them if they
                              ^^^^^
> teach us something.

Again, this should be Kraap'. Let me show off my two-stang opinion. I believe
the reason why we Kraap' for three times because we are paying respect to
the unit of three respectatable objects: Buddha, Dhamma, Sankha. Monk representsthese three elements at the same time. That's why we have to Kraap' for three
times.


> What I don't understand is this: 

>	When do we have to hold our hands together while speaking to them?

I assume you meant Pha'NOm-MUU- when you said "Hold hands together". Yes,
most Buddhist Thais do this when they are receiving the monk's preaching.
In conversation with a monk, some may do so but simply Sam+Ruam- (being
attentive) is good enough.

>	I have seen a few ladies (never men) do this when speaking to any
>	monk, but I thought they were extra religious or something.  I
>	have seen some ladies do this whenever they see a wat (temple).

The ladies you observed would have Waai" than simply Pha'NOm-MUU-. Waai" 
is when we put our hands together (fingers to fingers) and lift them up to
touch forehead or at the chest (with head bowing); then drop the arms down,
and split arms to normal gesture. Not all Buddhist people would do so
when they pass a wat.

>	Khun Brian told me that if the monk is very important, you have
>	to do this when speaking, but only if he is very important.

To my knowledge, you could do it either way: with hands in Pha'NOm- manner
or simply being Sam+Ruam- (solemn). The importance of the monk is hard
to judge except you may guess from their age. Technically, all monks are
equally important.


>	Last week, everyone (even men) at the New Year's Eve meditation 
>	and blessing ceremony would do this to all of the monks.  I know
>	these monks and none of them are very important (if you know what 
>	I mean).

Yes, when you are receiving blessing from the monks, sitting with hands
Pha'NOm is a norm. I doubt if you need to do it when you are in meditation
moment. You may only sit in Khad'Sa'Maad' with one hand loosely put on 
the other on your lap. 

> How do we tell if the monk is important?

Age can tell but not always. Normally, villagers know who has more Pan-Saa+
(number of lent) than the others. Such could help in treating a monk 
differently from the others but such practice is not official rule.


>	I know that any boy below age 20 becomes a nain (novice) if he 
>	wears the yellow robe.

To ordain as a Neen- has different ritual procedures from that of a monk. Neen-
and Phra" (monk) wear the same kind of robe.

>	I also know that any man age 20 or more becomes a phra (monk)
>	if he wears the yellow robe.  He may also be called lungphi+ 
>	(brother) or tahn (sir).  He is also called ajarn (instructor)
>	if he teaches something.

THis is not true. A Neen- is still a Neen if he has not enter a monkhood by
being ordained as such. Most Neen-, if still want to be in monkhood, will
Laa-Sik'Khaa+ from Neen first and then seek an ordination to become a monk.
The title used to call monks is not regulated by the monk authorities. Luang+
Phii" is used to call a young monk who seem not much older than the speaker.
Luang+Naa^, Luang+Lung-, Luang+Puu', or Luang+Taa- are also used but I 
believe they are not part of Sankha standard precedures. Thai people are
so familiar with kinship that they apply the kinship terms with the monks.
Ajarn is another example of a metaphor equating monk with ordinary people.

>	I also know that any phra who completes study at the Buddhist
>	University becomes a phra maha (great monk).
>

Ma'Haa+ is a monk who have passed Pa'Rien-Saam+ (3rd level of examination)
or higher. Completing the degree from the monks' college does not automatically
grant anyone with such title. However, many monk students have passed this
levels before they enter the monks' college.

>	I also know that the abbot is called bratahn.

I never heard of that. Most of them are called Ajarn. 

>	But none of these monks are very important.  What are the
>	important titles?

If you meant titles in the Sankha order, there are many level in the 
hierarchy: Jaw"Aa-Waad" (Abbot), Jaw"Ka"Na"Am-Pher- (district head),
Jaw"Ka"Na"Jang-Wad' (province head), Jaw"Ka"Na"Paak" (region head), and
on. Title is granted independently from these offices (like professorship
and administrative title in the institution of higher education, I guess). 
I don't remember exactly how many levels they can be but it seems like 
there are four levels: Chan^Phra, Chan^Raaj", Chan^Thep... These Chan^ 
will appear as a prefix to a title, e.g. Phra"Pi"Mon-Ra"Dham-, 
Phra"Raaj"Wo-Ra"Mu"Nii-, Phra"Thep"We-Thii-. 


> Also, what is the noun descriptor for monks?  If I want to say, "The
> temple has 4 monks," I must say "Wat mi phra si' kon" only kon (person)
> is the wrong word.

Normally, Ruub" is used as a classifier though Ong- is also used but not
KOn. I heard Northern Thais using TOn as descriptor. It had sounded so
strange to me before I learned that such descriptor was exclusive for 
somethings of holistic nature, e.g. Phra and The-Wa"Daa (god).


> Khawp Khun Khrup
> tim

Mai"Pen-Rai-Khrab"
Samart