タイ人の行動様式と仏教の倫理 : タイ農村社会の具体的考察に基いて

抄録

J.F. Embree, who in 1950, characterized Thai Society as 'A Loosely Structured Social System', pointed out that considerable variations of individual behavior tend to be sanctioned in Thai Society. His suggestion may still be instructive to the understanding of the nature of interpersonal relationships among the non-European societies, as the recent controversy of "LOOSELY STRUCTURED SOCIAL SYSTEMS" witnesses. However, this theory may need some elaboration, because the concepts of "individual behavior", "individualism" and "Buddhist values" often used by him and his followers, are vague, and the analysis of the relation between the former two concepts and the latter, is insufficient. In consideration of these points in this paper, we want to give shape to that feature of the Thai behavioral pattern and to make the relation between that feature and the ethics of Buddhism clear. For that purpose, we must first reexamine what was vaguely implied by the terms of "individual behavior" and "individualism", namely, the nature of interpersonal relationships within Thai Society, and secondly the nature of interpersonal relationships affected by the ethics of Buddhism. Now if we examine several recent ethnographies - especially those by HANKS, PHILLIPS, KAUFMAN, MOERMAN, TAMBIAH, and MIZUNO etc. - concerning the features of interpersonal relationships in Thai peasant society, it becomes clear that in almost all parts of Thailand, relationships show a sort of intermittence based on one's own volition, mutual equality and reciprocity. Turning to the ideal form of interpersonal relationships, expressed in the ethics of Buddhism at village level (="little-tradition") the studies concerning the complex conception of "Merit" by INGERSOLL. TAMBIAH, and MOERMAN etc, make it clear that all the interpersonal relationships in connection with the acquisition of "Merit", show a sort of intermittence based one's own volition, mutual equality and reciprocity. Thus the feature is perfectly consistent with that of the interpersonal relationships found in the domain of life irrelevant to the acquisition of "Merit". This may be a matter of course in a sense, because both of them are included in "little-tradition" which was defined by REDFIELD, and are directly connected with villagers. Therefore, both the examination of "great-tradition" which makes a pair with such "little-tradition" and of the relation between the two traditions particularly come into question. Thereupon if we examine the interpersonal relationships, extended in the Buddhist scriptures (="great-tradition"), it also becomes clear that the ideal form shows a sort of intermittence based on one's own volition, mutual equality and reciprocity. Incidentally, if we refer to the backgrounds of the ideal form of interpersonal relationships shown in "great-tradition", we can point out the Buddhist doctrine of "Suffering" and "Salvation" as the background of the features such as one's own volition, mutual equality and reciprocity, and the idea of "Uncertainty" .as that of the feature such as intermittence. we can also point out the view of "the fluid world m the two traditions, which seems to have some connection with the behavioral pattern in question. To put it in the concrete, "little-tradition" offers a view of the world where each of the beings occupies a different position respectively, owing to the accumulated quantity of its own "Merit", but the position seems temporary because of its continual change. Needless to say, the world of human beings is regarded as a part of such a world.