1. INTRODUCTION

In my 1995 book Dear Uncle Go: Male Homosexuality in Thailand I argued that popular Western perceptions of a general tolerance of homosexuality in Thailand are to an extent inaccurate. While there are no legal or formal sanctions against homosexuality in Thailand, a wide range of cultural sanctions operate to stigmatise Thai homosexual men and women. These anti-homosexual sanctions are diffused throughout Thai Society rather than being focussed in any clearly definable institution or set of homophobic practices, as has historically been the case in most Western societies.

However, this situation changed somewhat in the late 1980s. The initial "shock-horror" response to AIDS provided a focus for the previously diffuse anti-homosexual sentiments as homosexual men were publicly labelled as the "source" or "origin" (Thai : tonhet) of HIV infection in Thailand. A number of Buddhist writers were involved in this stigmatisation of homosexual men, drawing on Buddhist teachings to construct arguments against homosexuality that contributed to the fear and angst surrounding much public discussion of HIV/AIDS in the country in the late 1980s.

In this article I consider the background to some Thai Buddhists' anti-homosexual arguments by reviewing scriptural and doctrinal references to homoeroticism in the Thai Buddhist tradition. I begin by describing accounts of male homoeroticism in the Thai language translation of the Tipitaka, the canonical scriptures of Theravada Buddhism, noting, firstly, divergences in ethical judgments made on homosexuality in the canon and, secondly, similarities between scriptural descriptions of pandaka (Thai: bandor) and the popular Thai notion of the kathoey (transvestite, transsexual, male homosexual). Ethical attitudes presented in the canon are reproduced in many contemporary Thai Buddhist commentators' discussions of homosexuality and an appreciation of the ancient scriptural accounts is important in understanding views on homosexuality that are now represented as being sanctioned by religious authority.

I then consider traditional Thai accounts which propose that homosexuality arises as a kammic consequence of violating Buddhist proscriptions against heterosexual misconduct. These kammic accounts describe homosexuality as a congenital condition which cannot be altered, at least in a homosexual person's current lifetime, and have been linked with calls for compassion and understanding from the non-homosexual populace.

Lastly, I mention more recent Thai Buddhist accounts from the late 1980s that described homosexuality as a wilful violation of "natural" (hetero)sexual conduct resulting from lack of ethical control over sexual impulses. These accounts presented homosexuality as antithetical to Buddhist ideals of self-control and were associated with vehement anti-homosexual rhetoric and vociferous attacks on male homosexual behaviour as the purported origin of HIV/AIDS.

2. REFERENCES TO MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE THERAVADA SCRIPTURES

The extreme imagery evoked in the Buddha's denunciation of a monk who was found to have kept and trained a female monkey to have sex with him, denunciation whose core descriptions of hell are repeated in the condemnation of several other forms of clerical sexual misconduct, graphically portrays the kammic consequences that were believed to follow from a monk's violation of his vow of celibacy or brahmacariya,

Most contemporary Thai Buddhist writers follow early Buddhist attitudes and describe sex as extremely distasteful, even for the laity. One Thai writer on Buddhism, Isaramuni, equates sexuality with tanha (Thai: khwam-yak—craving or desire) and raga (Thai: kamnat—sexual lust), which are the antithesis of the Buddhist ideal of dispassionate equanimity (Isaramuni 1989:4). And while the Vinaya in general details an explicitly clerical code of conduct, similar anti-sex attitudes are now expressed in many Thai Buddhist writers' discussions of lay sexual ethics. In a discourse on married life Phra Buddhadasa, ⁵ an influential reformist thinker, calls reproduction "an activity that is distasteful, dirty and tiring" (Buddhadasa 1987:24) and says that sexual desire is a defilement (Pali: kilesa) that arises from ignorance (Pali: avijja), which Buddhist doctrine generally describes as the source of human suffering. Phra Buddhadasa says that in the past people were "employed" or "engaged" (Thai: jang) by nature in the "work" (Thai: ngan) of reproducing the species, but people now "cheat" nature by using contraception and having sex without being engaged in the work of reproduction. He maintains that this "cheating," i.e. engaging in sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is "paid back" because it causes problems such as nervous disorders, madness and physical deformities (ibid. :25).

Phra Buddhadasa calls on laypeople to be mindful and establish spiritually informed intelligence (Pali: sati-panna) and to have sex only for reproduction. Furthermore, he maintains that the highest ideal in marriage is to live together without sex, describing the solitary life dedicated to the achievement of nibbana as a higher ideal than married life (ibid. :35). Indeed, Phra Buddhadasa maintains that marriage is a stage of life for those who have not yet realised absolute truth, saying that once the inherent transience and unsatisfactoriness of the world is understood there will be no more desire for sex. He provides an example from the Tipitaka (no source cited) of ten year old children in the Buddha's time becoming arahants, perfected beings who have achieved nibbana, and maintains that this would be possible today if children were educated in Buddhist principles and led to see the truth revealed by Buddhism. Phra Buddhadasa adds that as adults such children would have no interest in sex because of their high spiritual status (ibid. :36-37).

Significantly, contemporary Thai Buddhist views on laypersons' sexual behaviour are often more proscriptive and extreme than attitudes reflect in the Pali canon or in traditional or popular Thai accounts of Buddhist doctrine and ethics. Phra Buddhadasa's work has been especially influential among educated and middle class Thai Buddhists. However, his views on sexuality are at variance with Thai Buddhism's traditional distinction between lay and clerical ethical conduct. The ethical extremism of Phra Buddhadasa and other contemporary Buddhist reformists in Thailand such as Phra Phothirak results from a clericalising trend whereby ethical demands traditionally made only of monks are now increasingly also being required of laypersons. The much publicised asceticism and celibacy of the prominent political figure and strict Buddhist Major-General Chamlong Srimuang, epitomises the monastic regimen that some contemporary reform movements within Thai Buddhism (e.g. Santi Asoke) require of their devout lay followers.

1. Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with a female human, non-human (i.e. an immaterial being) or animal;
2. Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with an ubhatobyanjanaka human, non-human or animal;
3. Anal or oral intercourse ⁸ with a pandaka human, non-human or animal; and
4. Anal or oral intercourse with a male human, non-human or animal.

Together with bestiality (see "The Case of the Female Monkey," Vinaya, vol. 1, p. 27), necrophilia (see "The Two Cases of Open Sores [in Dead Bodies]," Vinaya, Vol. 1, pp. 221-222) and sex with inanimate objects (see "The Case of the Moulded Image," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 222 and "The Case of the Wooden Doll," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 222), the Vinaya also proscribes a range of homoerotic or strictly speaking autoerotic forms of sexual activity such as auto-fellatio (see "The Case of the Nimble-backed Monk," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 221) and auto-sodomy (see "The Case of the Monk with a Long Penis," Vinaya, Vol. 1, p. 221).

In the Vinaya's listings of proscribed sexual activities, sex between monks and the various categories of women, hermaphrodites, transvestites, men, dead bodies, animals and inanimate objects are all described in equivalent terms, none being presented as any more morally reprehensible than any other and all entailing spiritual defeat, although sex with inanimate objects was regarded as a lesser infraction entailing penance but not expulsion from the sangha. However, elsewhere in the Vinaya and in other sections of the Tipitaka it is made clear that ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka are spiritually and ritually inferior to men, often being compared with women and criminals. But before reviewing these scriptural references I first consider in detail the definitions of the Pali terms ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka and their relationship to the Thai notion of kathoey.

A famous scriptural example of such a sex-changing ubhatobyanjanaka is the case of a wealthy man named after his home town of Soreyya that is recorded in the Dhammapadatthakatha the commentary on the Dhammapada. The Sri Lankan scholar Malalasekera summarises the Soreyya legend as follows,

1. asittakapandaka—A man who gains sexual satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, or who only becomes sexually aroused after having ingested another man's semen (ibid. :235-236).
2. ussuyapandaka—A voyeur, a man or woman who gains sexual satisfaction merely from watching a man and a woman having sex (ibid. :236).
3. opakkamikapandaka—Eunuchs, that is, castrated men lacking complete sexual organs. Unlike the other four types of pandaka Bunmi describes, these men attain their condition after birth and are not born as pandaka (ibid.:236). ¹⁵
4. pakkhapandaka—PeopIe who by the force of past misdeeds become sexually aroused in parallel with the phases of the moon, either becoming sexually aroused during the two week period of the waning moon (Pali: kalapakkha) and ceasing to be sexually aroused during the fortnight of the waxing moon (Pali: junhapakkha) or, conversely, becoming sexually aroused during the period of the waxing moon and ceasing to be sexually aroused during the period of the waning moon (ibid.:236). ¹⁶
5. napumsakapandaka (also sometimes called simply napumsaka)—A person with no clearly defined genitals, whether male or female, having only a urinary tract (ibid. :237). Another definition of a napumsaka given by Bunmi is, "a [male] person who is not able to engage in activities like a man" (ibid. :239). Elsewhere Bunmi adds that napumsakapandaka are born without any genital organs as punishment for having castrated animals in a past life (ibid. :267). ¹⁷

Contemporary Thai accounts of ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka are complicated by the tendency of authors to identify both these groups as kathoeys and to use this Thai term interchangeably with the Pali terms. Different Thai authors use the term kathoey to refer to at least four distinct conditions covering a diverse range of physical, psychological and emotional phenomena that are now usually separated out into biological sex (hermaphroditism), psychological gender (transvestism and transsexualism) and sexuality (homosexuality). Originally kathoey appears to have referred to true hermaphrodites. However, it has come to be used more broadly to refer to people who are believed to possess or take on physical, behavioural or attitudinal characteristics generally ascribed to the opposite sex. The complex of phenomena referred to by the term kathoey reflects Thai cultural norms of masculinity and femininity and notions of appropriate sex roles, gender behaviour and sexuality. Kathoey denotes a type of person not simply a type of behaviour and in different contexts can include one or more of the following groups:

1. Hermaphrodites (Pali: ubhatobyanjanaka; Thai: kathoey thae or "true kathoeys"): that is, people who to a greater or lesser degree are either born with or at some time after birth naturally develop physical characteristics of both sexes. Hermaphrodites also include people born without any clearly determinable sex (Pali: napumsakapandaka ).
2. Transvestites and Transsexuals (Pali: pandaka, itthi- & purisa-ubhato byanjanaka; Thai: kathoey thiam or "pseudo-kathoeys"): that is, people who are physically male or female but prefer either to dress and behave as a member of the opposite sex or, in the case of transsexuals, to undergo hormone treatment and/or surgery in order to change their body to more closely approximate the physical features of a person of the opposite sex. In the Pali canon transsexualism is described as a spontaneous change of sex caused purely by psychological factors and not requiring medical intervention.
3. Homosexuals (Pali: pandaka; Thai: variously, kathoey, gay, tut, etc. for men; kathoeys, tom, dee, etc., for women): that is, people who are physically male or female and are sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

The Thai term kathoey is derivationally unrelated to the Pali scriptural terms it is commonly used to translate, suggesting an indigenous pre-Buddhist conception of abnormal gender/sexuality. The Thai peoples adopted Theravada Buddhism around the eleventh and twelfth centuries of the Christian era. But whether or not Buddhism has been instrumental in influencing the development of the popular Thai notion, a very similar mixing of physical and psychological sex, gender behaviours and sexuality occurs both in the Pali terms pandaka and in the Thai term kathoey. Both terms are parts of conceptual schemes in which people regarded as exhibiting physiological or culturally ascribed features of the opposite sex are categorised together. If Buddhism was not the source of the popular Thai conception of kathoey then at the very least it has reinforced a markedly similar pre-existing Thai cultural concept.

Several points emerge from the diversity of definitions for ubhatobyanjanaka, pandaka and kathoey:
Firstly, the mix of sexual and gender phenomena denoted by the terms ubhatobyanjanaka, pandaka and kathoey are lumped together because in both the canonical Buddhist and traditional Thai views they represented an assumed continuum of sex/gender imbalance, from the solely physical (hermaphroditism) to the psycho-physical (transvestism, transsexualism) and the solely psychological (homosexuality).

Secondly, what further united the diverse physiological, psychological and behavioural categories brought together under these terms is the assumption, detailed further below, that all have a common kammic origin in heterosexual misconduct in a past life. Indeed, the issue of the origin of homosexuality dominates contemporary discussions of the topic by Thai Buddhist commentators and, as described in detail in the following sections, this has important implications for Buddhist ethical pronouncements on homosexuality.

Thirdly, ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka denote types of people rather than types of behaviour and are primarily gender categories—denoting assumed deficiencies or aberrations in masculinity or femininity—rather than categories that denote sexuality. This is shown by the fact that the Vinaya in places refers to homosexual behaviour between monks who are not identified as being either ubhatobyanjanaka or pandaka That is, homosexuality is not the central defining feature of these two categories. But having said this, it is still the case that the aberrant gender of ubhatobyanjanaka and pandaka people is generally assumed to imply that they engage in homosexual behaviour.

The traditional sense of the Thai term kathoey also appears to have focussed primarily on assumed gender aberration as defining a type of person and only secondarily on homosexual behaviour. However, the diffuseness of many contemporary Thai discussions of pandaka appears to result not only from the diverse range of phenomena referred to by the term in the Pali scriptures but also from a recent shift from assumed gender imbalance to homosexuality as the defining characteristic of a kathoey individual. This recent semantic shift in Thailand—to regard homosexual behaviour as much as cross-gender attributes as defining some persons' individuality—is still in process and older, gender-focussed readings of the term kathoey co-exist with the newer emphasis on sexuality. Nevertheless, the extent of the semantic shift that has taken place in the past two or three decades can be seen from the fact that kathoey is now commonly used by heterosexuals as a derogatory term for any homosexual man even when that man is not effeminate and does not cross-dress. ¹⁸

This shift in the sense of kathoey, together with the common tendency to use this word to translate the Pali term pandaka, leads many contemporary Thai commentators to read the Buddhist scriptures as referring to "homosexuals" in the modern sense of the term. For example, in his article "Gays Appear in sangha Circles" Khamhuno uses the Pali, Thai and English terms pandaka, bandor and gay interchangeably to mean homosexual men (Khamhuno 1989:37). This represents an important shift in the reading of the term pandaka. Many ethical judgments made of pandaka in the Vinaya (see below) relate primarily to the transgression of ascribed gender roles for men and women. However, when kathoeys is understood to mean "homosexual" or "gay" and pandaka is translated by kathoey then scriptural judgments on pandaka are read as referring to homosexuality or gayness whether or not these are associated with cross-gender behaviour. In other words, early Buddhist pronouncements on one phenomenon—cross-gender behaviour—are now widely read in Thailand as referring to another, distinct phenomenon—homosexuality or gayness.

The Vinaya does not appear to contain any explicit ethical pronouncements on the behaviour of lay pandaka or ubhatobyanjanaka. Furthermore, the Theravada scriptures and related commentary literature are not consistent in their ethical judgments of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka within the sangha, recording attitudes varying from the accepting and compassionate to the unaccepting and discriminatory. What appears to determine the Buddha's described attitude in different cases is not the individual pandaka's or ubhatobyanjanaka's different gender or sexual interests as such, but rather how openly he/she reveals his/her difference and whether their condition was known before they were ordained into the sangha or was only discovered after ordination. In general, the Buddha was more tolerant of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka who were less open about their difference and whose condition was only discovered after ordination.

Furthermore, canonical attitudes to pandaka in particular appear to have developed over time as the Buddha attempted to ensure that the newly formed sangha remained respectable in the eyes of the public of his time. As reported in the canon, attitudes to pandaka in the sangha developed in response to incidents of public criticism as much as in response to any application of general ethical principles. In trying to avoid being seen as disreputable in the eyes of lay society in ancient India, the early sangha appears to have absorbed, codified and institutionalised prevailing antagonistic attitudes to pandaka. As Richard Gombrich notes,

The commentary literature also contains a number of legends and stories of pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka being accepted within the sangha. The previously described account of Soreyya is a case in point. In particular, the scriptural claim that Soreyya ultimately attained arahantship would appear to contradict the view held by some contemporary Thai Buddhists that homosexuals are constitutionally incapable of achieving nibbana or other high spiritual attainments. Bunmi for one opposes this view and provides scriptural support for a compassionate and accepting stance on homosexuality by citing scriptural references to spiritually eminent and respected pandaka and by equating pandaka with kathoey, which he in turn identifies with gay or homosexual. Bunmi refers to the Abhidhammapitaka (no reference cited) as stating that Ananda, the Buddha's first cousin and personal attendant, had been born as a kathoey in many previous lives (Bunmi 1986:261). Prasok, a newspaper columnist writing on Buddhism, ²⁰ also refers to this scriptural account, saying,

1. rupapamanika (variously spelt rupappamanika)—literally "measuring [significance] by form," that is, those who developed faith because of attraction to the Buddha's impressive physical appearance, including his "radiant coppery complexion" (Sathienpong 1987:59).
2. ghosapamanika (variously spelt ghosappamanika)—those who were impressed by the Buddha's voice and developed faith.
3. lukhapamanika (variously spelt lukhappamanika)—those who were impressed by the simplicity of the Buddha's way of life and so developed faith.
4. dhammapamanika (variously spelt dhammappamanika)—those who were impressed by the Buddha's teachings and consequently developed faith.

In the version of the legend related by Sathienpong, ²² Vakkali was the son of a Brahmin from Savitthi and was so impressed by the Buddha's physical appearance that he sought ordination. But after being ordained he did not undertake the normal monastic activities, instead spending his time following the Buddha everywhere so that he could look at him. One day when Vakkali was staring unblinkingly at the Buddha, the Buddha castigated him, asking what he was looking for "in this stinking rotten body? Anyone who sees the dhamma has seen the Buddha and anyone who has seen the Buddha has seen the dhamma" (Sathienpong 1987:60). The Buddha then ordered Vakkali out of his presence. Vakkali was so shattered by this command that he attempted to kill himself by jumping off a mountain. But deva or spiritual beings informed the Buddha of Vakkali's dejection and he quickly went to the monk's aid in time to save him from committing suicide. With an extremely brief exposition of the dhamma, "The eyes see dhamma," the Buddha gave Vakkali the insight he needed in order to attain enlightenment and he immediately attained arahantship.

The ban on the ordination of pandaka or kathoeys has continued until today. In 1989 Khamhuno reported a meeting of the Mahatherasamakhom or Sangha Council, the supreme governing body of the Thai sangha, at which the matter of "sexually perverted (wiparit thang phet) persons being ordained as monks" was raised (Khamhuno 1989:37). The Sangha Council discussed the matter after news reports of the ordination of a kathoey and local criticism of the abbot who permitted the ordination. In reporting the Council's meeting, Khamhuno reaffirmed the Buddha's edict that pandaka should not be ordained, writing, "In fact, the Vinaya and the laws of the Mahatherasamakhom clearly specify that people who are kathoeys or pandaka are prohibited from being ordained." adding that pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka are also prohibited from being ordained as novices (ibid.).

Khamhuno comments that when a man presents for ordination he is ceremonially asked a number of questions in Pali by the ordaining preceptor. Among these is the question, purisosi—"You are a man, are you not?" The ordinand is then expected to answer with the affirmative expression, amabhante. Khamhuno says that this question is meant to determine whether the ordinand is in fact a man, not a person with two genders (ubhatobyanjanaka) or a kathoey (pandaka), and justifies the ban on gays in the sangha on the basis of having to prevent people who can bring the order into disrepute from being ordained. ²⁶ By equating gays with kathoeys and hermaphrodites and affirming the ban on their ordination, Khamhuno indicates that the crux of the prohibition on their ordination is, as suggested above, the expression of inappropriate or inadequate masculinity. The ordination question, "You are a man, are you not?" thus refers to more than biological male sex, also including the culturally defined gender notion of masculinity. In other words, the ordination question could be translated as You are a 'real' man, are you not?"

That deficient masculinity lies at the core of the notion of pandaka (and also of kathoey), and is the basis of discriminatory attitudes towards this group in the Buddhist scriptures, is further demonstrated in sections of the Vinaya where pandaka are described as having a spiritually inferior status to men. For example, Volume Four specifies that if a monk is ill on the day when the patimokkha, the two hundred and twenty seven clerical rules of conduct, are ritually recited and he is unable to join in the ceremony he may declare his moral purity, that is, the fact that he has not violated the clerical code during the past fortnight, to another monk. This second monk may then convey the ill monk's affirmation to the assembly of monks at that monastery. But if the monk to whom the ill monk makes his affirmation has some stigma attaching to him then the affirmation is invalidated and must be made again to another, ritually pure monk. The specified types of stigma that invalidate an affirmation of moral purity include: the fact that a purported monk is only a novice (i.e. not fully ordained into the order), if the monk is mentally deranged, a murderer, a non-human (i.e. a spirit) posing as a human or if the monk is a pandaka ( Vinaya, Vol. 4, pp. 194-195). That is, according to the Vinaya, pandaka, along with murderers, the mentally deranged, non-humans, etc., are spiritually defective and lack the ritual authority required in order to convey an ill monk's affirmation of moral purity to the assembly of monks.

Furthermore, in the section of the Vinaya dealing with ceremonial seating arrangements for monks. The Buddha permits monks to sit together with other monks in a specified arrangement but explicitly prohibits them from sitting together with pandaka, women and ubhatobyanjanaka, indicating that he considered it spiritually inappropriate for monks to sit with members of these three non-masculine groups (Vinaya, Vol. 7, p. 84). 

3. CONTEMPORARY THAI VIEWS ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Bunmi lists a number of types of sexual misconduct in a past life that can lead a person to engage in homosexual activity in their current life. These misdeeds include committing adultery, being a prostitute, sexually interfering with one's children or being sexually irresponsible, such as a man not caring for a woman who becomes pregnant by him (Bunmi 1986:120- 121). Bunmi emphasises that the strength of old kamma (Thai: kam kao) generated by such transgressions cannot be counteracted and its consequences have to be accepted,
 

Even if brought up well in this life or born into a high family or as the child of royalty, no matter how prestigious their background, they [people who committed sexual offences in a past life] will not be able to stop themselves from becoming mixed up in sexual matters from an early age. No matter how much their parents criticise them and no matter how much they are instructed, they will still easily act wrongly with regard to sex and will not see it as dangerous but rather as something ordinary (ibid.:121).

Bunmi maintains that sex-determined kamma is of two types, that which manifests from birth and leads to hermaphroditism and that which manifests after birth and leads to transvestism, transsexualism and homosexuality (ibid. :287). He says those who are born hermaphrodites cannot attain nibbana in this life but those who become kathoeys after birth can attain nibbana if they apply their discriminating intelligence (Thai: panya) to the task of spiritual liberation (ibid. :294). Bunmi also says that kathoeys tend to be born in societies in which sexual misconduct is prevalent because such societies provide appropriate environments for them to expend their kammic debts (ibid.:301).

Significantly, Bunmi maintains that actions and desires which have an involuntary cause in the kammic consequences of past sexual misconduct do not themselves accrue any future kammic consequences. They are the outworking of past kamma, not sources for the accumulation of future kamma. According to Bunmi, homosexual activity and the desire to engage in homosexual activity fall into this category and are not sinful and do not accrue kammic consequences. In a similar vein, he says that,
 

Changing one's sex is not sinful (Pali: ducarita). Consequently the intention to change one's sex cannot have any ill kammic consequences. But sexual misconduct (Thai: phit-kam) is sinful and can lead to consequences in a subsequent birth (ibid. :306).

The sexual activities that Bunmi says Buddhism classes as sins are precisely those which in traditional Thai society, and presumably also in ancient India, were regarded as dishonouring and sullying the female victims and their male relatives or spouses, namely, adultery, rape and sex with a girl who has not been given in marriage. In this cultural context two men having sex does not cause any equivalent damage or loss (Thai: sia hai), except perhaps to their reputations as "real men" should they be discovered. But when a man is cuckolded or his wife is raped then his property has been interfered with and, in Bunmi's words, an action equivalent to a theft has occurred. Similarly, having sex with a girl who has not been given in marriage, that is, ceremonially handed over from her father to her husband, is also to interfere with a man's traditional property, in this case his daughter, and may make the young woman difficult to marry off.

There is therefore a close relationship between, on the one hand, those sexual activities which Buddhist teachings proscribe for lay people and which are interpreted as incurring kammic debts and, on the other hand, the traditional sexual mores and gender roles of Asian societies. A range of physical gender imbalances and sexual activities and inclinations which slip outside these traditional norms are considered to have a neutral kammic impact and are not regarded as evil or sinful. Significantly, it is violations of tabus and mores relating to potentially reproductive sexual behaviour which are proscribed in Bunmi's traditionalist Buddhist account, while behaviours and conditions without reproductive consequences, including homosexuality, are not regarded as sinful. However, this situation changes markedly in some more recent Thai Buddhist interpretations which identify homosexual behaviour as most definitely sinful.

Prasok adds that in a previous birth all people who are now kathoeys have had to climb the spike tree of hell (Thai: ton-ngiw). After committing sexual sins they were reborn in hell where they were chased by vicious beasts, their only escape being to climb a tree with spikes in its trunks and branches which pierced their limbs and bodies as they clambered up it. Prasok says these people suffered great torment and cried out "Oh! Oh! I've learnt my lesson," and because of the suffering kathoeys have purportedly endured in hell he feels in no position to condemn them, adding that you cannot criticise people because of their kamma.

Bunmi's view on the kammic origins of homosexuality and being a kathoey lead him to a similar compassionate but condescending stance. Bunmi says,

The critics continue to conflate gender and sexuality issues, interpreting homosexuality as a consequence of gender imbalance or perversion. However, in the light of the focus on male homosexual activity as a mode of transmission of HIV infection during the early years of the pandemic, Thai Buddhist critics concentrated more on the sexuality of people identified as kathoeys than on these persons' assumed gender imbalance. It is interesting that this inversion of the traditional structuring of ideas of gender and sexuality in the notion of the kathoey, placing homosexuality rather than gender at the focus of the concept, was associated with a shift in Buddhist attitudes from relative tolerance to condemnation of homosexuality. AIDS thus had an important cultural impact in Thailand, contributing to shifts in the understanding of what constitutes a kathoey and leading to increased stigmatisation of male homosexuality.

4. CONCLUSION

It is interesting that the latter, intolerant view is the more recent and, paradoxically, is presented by some authors who are otherwise identified as progressive. Buddhist authors like Phra Ratchaworamuni are generally concerned to reform Thai Buddhism by uprooting institutional corruption, demythologising traditional Buddhist metaphysics and making the sangha a purer and more effective cultural vehicle for transmitting traditional values in the contemporary world. As in the West, public panic about AIDS and latent fears about homosexuality combined in Thailand in the 1980s to produce an increasingly explicit intolerance of homosexuality in some quarters. But AIDS alone does not explain the vehemence of the recent Buddhist attacks on homosexuality. In my 1989 book Buddhism, Legitimation and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism I described how reformist interpretations of Buddhism have been associated with a de-emphasis on kamma as an explanation for why society and people are the way they are. This has opened the way for the development of an interventionist Buddhist social theory in Thailand which focuses more on people's capacity to change their circumstances than on the extent to which their current life conditions are kammically pre-determined. From an ethical standpoint, interventionist and politically progressive Buddhist theories place more emphasis on individuals' responsibility for their own future. However, in the context of the AIDS panic in the second half of the 1980s and a widespread if previously diffuse anti-homosexual sentiment in Thailand, the new reformist accounts of Buddhism fostered the development of a more focussed anti-homosexual polemic.

Reformist and modernist trends in Thai Buddhism are often regarded as politically progressive because of their opposition to the historical alignment of the sangha with the authoritarian centralised state and military dictatorship. On the other hand, traditional metaphysical views of Buddhism which emphasised the assumed determining power of kamma are criticised by reformists as intellectually backward and politically conservative. Paradoxically, however, the reformist, politically progressive interpretations of Buddhism are often linked with a strident moralism and a vehement anti-homosexual stance unprecedented in recent Thai history. While, on the other hand, the conservative traditionalists who still believe in the determining power of kamma take a more laissez faire approach to issues such as homosexuality.

Thailand in the second half of the 1980s thus provided an interesting example of how changing intellectual and social conditions can bring a previously neglected area of social and cultural life to prominence and invest it with new meanings and significance. Thai history in the 1980s also shows that political progressivism, intellectual modernisation and ethical liberalism are not necessarily related trends and can move independently and at different rates. Indeed, the very factors which lead to perceived political progress and expanded socio-economic opportunities for some sectors can simultaneously lead to regressive and discriminatory developments in other spheres which restrict and deny opportunities to other sectors of society.

Nevertheless, the impact of Buddhist authors' anti-homosexual rhetoric appears to have been relatively small. To a large measure this has been because the 1980s issue of homosexual men as the purported source of AIDS has all but been forgotten in the 1990s as the magnitude of the problem of heterosexual transmission of HIV in Thailand has become apparent. ²⁷ The vehement anti-homosexual rhetoric in Thailand in the second half of the 1980s has not led to any noticeable increase in publicly expressed intolerance or discrimination against male homosexuals beyond that which already existed. Paradoxically, the brief period of public anxiety about homosexual men as vectors of HIV/AIDS and the associated religiously authorised criticisms of kathoeys may in fact have contributed to the consolidation of gay identity among increasing numbers of Thai homosexual men and not only because of the public prominence given to homosexuality.

There has been considerable discussion among Western gay/lesbian analysts about the historical shift in Western societies from viewing homosexuality as a behaviour to a defining characteristic of a type of person, i.e. the homosexual (see Halperin 1990). The changing relative emphases on gender and sexuality in the notion of kathoey appear to be leading to a similar shift in Thailand. When the class of people identified as kathoeys were primarily defined by their assumed gender imbalance then homosexuality was viewed as a behaviour that "men" as well as kathoeys may engage in. But as kathoeys have come to be defined more by their sexuality then the idea of the homosexual as a class of person has also gained currency in Thailand. This change is reflected in the already noted heterosexual use of the term kathoey to refer derogatorily to homosexual men and the idea that even though a gay man may look like a "man," he is really a kathoey underneath.

There is no doubt that Western notions of the homosexual as a type of person have influenced Thai conceptions of sexuality. However, in Thailand the notions of homosexual personhood and gay identity have developed from a specifically Thai base. The pre-existing notion of the kathoey as a type of person defined by their unconventional gender/sexuality has provided an indigenous foundation for the development of new sexual identities that often appear to mirror those in the West. The view of some Thai critics that gayness in Thailand results from corrupting Western influences or mimicking of Western "sexual fashions" (see Sulak 1984:121) is therefore mistaken, but so is the perception of many Western visitors to Thailand that gay identity there is an exact mirror of Western sexualities.

Despite their discriminatory character, the fact that the Buddhist-based diatribes published in the light of HIV/AIDS focussed on homosexual men's unconventional sexuality rather than their ascribed cross-gender behaviour contributed to the consolidation of notions of homosexual identity in Thailand. In the 1990s Thai homosexual men tend to be defined as much if not more by their sexuality as by their assumed breach of gender norms, and one unintended consequence of the 1980s criticisms may be the firmer establishment of homosexuality and gayness as acknowledged focuses of sexual and social existence in Thailand.

"He belonged to a brahmin family of Savatthi and became proficient in the three Vedas. After he once saw the Buddha he could never tire of looking at him, and followed him about. In order to be closer to him he became a monk, and spent all his time, apart from meals and bathing, in contemplating the Buddha's person. One day the Buddha said to him, 'The sight of my foul body is useless; he who sees the dhamma, he it is that seeth me' (yo kho dhammam passati so mam passati; yo mam passati so dhammam passati). ²⁸ But even then Vakkali would not leave the Buddha till, on the last day of the rains, the Buddha commanded him to depart. Greatly grieved, Vakkali sought the precipices of Gijjhakuta. The Buddha, aware of this, appeared before him and uttered a stanza; then stretching out his hand, he said: 'Come monk.' ²⁹ Filled with joy, Vakkali rose in the air pondering the Buddha's words and realised arahantship. ³⁰

"According to the Theragatha Commentary, ³¹ when Vakkali was dismissed by the Buddha he lived on Gijjhakuta, practising meditation, but could not attain insight because of his emotional nature (saddha). The Buddha then gave him a special exercise, but neither could he achieve this and, from lack of food, he suffered from cramp. The Buddha visited him and uttered a verse to encourage him. Vakkali spoke four verses ³² in reply and, conjuring up insight, won arahantship. Later, in the assembly of monks the Buddha declared him foremost among those of implicit faith (saddhadhimuttanam). ³³ In the Parayanavagga ³⁴ the Buddha is represented as holding Vakkali up to Pingiya as an example of one who won emancipation through faith.

"The Samyutta account ³⁵ gives more details and differs in some respects from the above. There, Vakkali fell ill while on his way to visit the Buddha at Rajagaha, and was carried in a litter to a potter's shed in Rajagaha. There, at his request, the Buddha visited him and comforted him. He questioned Vakkali who assured him that he had no cause to reprove him with regard to morals (silato); his only worry was that he had not been able to see the Buddha earlier. The Buddha told him that seeing the dhamma was equivalent to seeing him, and because Vakkali had realised the dhamma, there would be no hereafter for him. After the Buddha had left, Vakkali asked his attendants to take him to Kalasila on Isigili. The Buddha was on Gijjhakuta and was told by two devas that Vakkali was about to 'obtain release.' The Buddha send [sic] word to him: "Fear not, Vakkali, your dying will not be evil.' Vakkali rose from his bed to receive the Buddha's message, and sending word to the Buddha that he had no desire or love for the body or the other khandhas [aggregates or factors making up human existence], he drew a knife and killed himself. The Buddha went to see his body, and declared that he had obtained nibbana and that Mara's attempts to find the consciousness of Vakkali would prove fruitless.

"The Commentary adds that Vakkali was conceited and blind to his remaining faults. He thought he was a khinasava [one whose mind is freed from mental obsessions], and that he might rid himself of bodily pains by death. However, the stab with the knife caused him such pain that at the moment of dying he realised his puthujana [worldly, unliberated] state and, putting forth great effort, attained arahantship.

"His resolve to become chief among the saddhadhimuttas had been made in the time of the Padumuttara Buddha, when he saw a monk also named Vakkali similarly honoured by the Buddha." ³⁶

REFERENCES

Phra Traipidok Chabap Luang (The Tipitaka Official Royal Edition), Department of Religious Affairs, Ministry of Education, Bangkok, 4th Printing, 2525 (1982).

(Phra) Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, Chiwit Khu (Life As a Couple), Sukhaphap Jai Printers, Bangkok, 2530 (1987).

Bunmi Methangkun, Khon Pen Kathoey Dai Yang-rai (How Can People Be Kathoeys?), Abhidhamma Foundation, Bangkok, 2529 (1986).

Gombrich, Richard, Theravada Buddhism, A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1988.

Halperin, David M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love, Routledge New York, 1990.

Isaramuni, Withi Porng-kan Rok Et (The Method to Protect Against AIDS), Isaramuni Pointing the Way Series Vol. 34, Work to Revive the Dhamma for the Return of Ethics and the Supramundane, Liang Chiang Press, Bangkok, 2532 (1989).

Jackson, Peter A., Buddhadasa: A Buddhist Thinker for the Modern World, the Siam Society, Bangkok, 1988.

— , Buddhism, Legitimation and Conflict: the Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1989.

—. Dear Uncle Go: Male Homosexuality in Thailand, Bua Luang Books, Bangkok, 1995.

Khamhuno (pseud.), '"Gay Prakot Nai Wongkan Song (Gays Appear in Sangha Circles)", "Sangkhom Satsana (Religion and Society Column)," Siam Rath Sutsapda (Siam Rath Weekly), Vol. 36, No. 22, 18 November 2532 (1989), pp. 37-38.

Lyttleton, Chris, "Storm Warnings: Responding to Messages of Danger in Isan," in Thai Sexuality in the Age of AIDS: The Australian Journal of Anthropology 1995, 6:3, pp. 178-196.

Malalasekera, G.P., Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (2 VoIs.), Luzac & Co. for the Pali Text Society, London, 1960.

Manit Manitcharoen, Photjananukrom Thai (Thai dictionary), Ruam-san Bangkok, 2526 (1983).

Monier-Williams, Monier, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oriental Publishers, New Delhi, n.d.

(Phra) Phadet Thattajiwo Bhikkhu, Waksin Porng-kan Rok Ee (A Vaccine to Protect Against AIDS), Thammakay Foundation, Pathumthani, 2530a (1987).

—, Luang Phor Torp Panha (Reverend Father Responds to Problems), Thammakay Foundation, Pathumthani, 2530b (1987).

Prasok (pseud.), "Khang Wat (Beside the Monastery Column)," Siam Rath (daily newspaper), Bangkok, 2 March 2532 ( 1989), p. 10.

Ratchabanditayasathan (Royal Institute), Photjananukrom Chabap Ratchabanditayasathan (Royal Institute Edition Dictionary), Bangkok, 2525 (1982).

(Phra) Ratchaworamuni (current ecclesiastical title Phra Thepwethi), Photjananukrom Phutthasat Chabap Pramuan-sap (A Dictionary of Buddhist Teachings, Compiled Edition), Mahachulalongkorn Ratchawitthayalai, Bangkok, 2527 (1984).

Rhys Davids, T. W. & William Stede (eds.), Pali-English Dictionary, Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, New Delhi, 1975.

Sathienpong Wannapok, "'Meua Gay Morng-hen Tham (When Gays See Dhamma)" in Suan-thang Nipphan (Passing [in Opposite Directions] on the Way to nibbana), Chor-mafai Publishers, Bangkok, 2530 (1987), pp. 59-62.

Sulak Sivaraksa, Lork-khrap S. Siwarak (Unmasking S. Sivaraksa), Reuan Kaew Printers, Bangkok, 2527 (1984).

—. Lork-khrap Watthanatham Thai (Unmasking Thai Culture), Suksit Siam, Bangkok, 2531 (1988).

Suchip Punyanuphap Phra Traipidok Samrap Prachachon (The Tipitaka for the People), Mahamakut Ratchawitthayalai, Bangkok, 2525 (1982).

Zwilling, Leonard, "Homosexuality as Seen in Indian Buddhist Texts." in José Ignacio Cabezón (ed.), Buddhism Sexuality, and Gender, State University of New York Press, New York, 1992.

¹ Thanks to Eric Allyn and Ross McMurtrie for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article. Pali is the classical language of the Theravada Buddhist tradition of Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma, Laos and Cambodia and in this article I use the Pali rather than the Sanskrit forms of Buddhist terms, e.g. kamma instead of karma, nibbana instead of nirvana, etc. Note also that Thailand uses the Buddhist Era (B.E.) calendar and all Thai language publications are dated according to this system, which begins with the traditionally ascribed year of the Buddha's death or parinibbana in 543 B.C. To calculate the Christian Era year from the Buddhist Era year subtract 543, e.g. B.E. 2540=A.D. 1997. In this article I also follow the Thai system of referring to authors by their first names rather than by their surnames. In Thailand lists of Thai persons' names are always arranged alphabetically by first name rather than by surname, a practice that follows from the fact that family names were only introduced universally in the early decades of the twentieth century. However, Thais also respect Western custom and list the names of non-Thai persons alphabetically by surname.

² Zwilling (1992:208) notes that there are no explicit references to homosexuality in the Suttapitaka, the collection of the Buddha's sermons or discourses.

³ I refer to the Thai translation of the Tipitaka in this article because the selection of Thai terms used to translate Pali often reflects Thai cultural values, providing insight into the translators' views and preconceptions. For example, the Pali term pandaka is sometimes translated directly by the equivalent Thai technical term bandor, while at other times it is translated by the colloquial term kathoey. All translations in this paper are my own.

⁴ Zwilling (1992:209) notes that in his commentary on the Cakkavattisutta of the Digha Nikaya, Buddhaghosa takes the expression "wrong conduct" (miccha dhamma), the cause of humanity's progressive degeneration in Buddhist legend, as meaning "the sexual desire of men for men and women for women." However, the Pali canon itself does not suggest this reading.

⁵ Phra is an honorific Thai title for monks or bhikkhu.

⁶ Pali: ubhato—Two-fold, double: byanjana—sign or mark (of gender, etc.); ka—Derivative-forming suffix.

⁷ It is possible that pandaka is derived from the Pali term anda, which variously means "egg" or "testicles," and may originally have had the sense of male reproductive deficiency or incapacity. Monier-Williams (n.d. :580) defines the cognate Sanskrit terms pandra and pandraka as "eunuch or impotent man." Zwilling (1992:204) says that the term is of obscure origin and may ultimately be derived from apa + anda + ka, "without testicles." He adds, however, that this should not be taken literally as meaning that a pandaka was necessarily an eunuch but, rather should "be interpreted metaphorically as we do in English when it is said of a weak or pusillanimous person that he (or she) 'has no balls.'" Zwilling adds that the term pandaka used in the canon could not have meant a eunuch because, with the exception of the congenitally impotent, accounts of pandaka describe a man who is capable of "either erection, ejaculation, or the experience of sexual pleasure."

⁸ The fact that vaginal intercourse is not listed as a possibility for pandaka indicates that they are biologically male.

⁹ Phra Ratchaworamuni (Pali: Rajavaramuni) is the former ecclesiastical title of the monk Phra Prayut Payutto. His current ecclesiastical title is Phra Thepwethi (Pali: Devavedhi).

¹⁰ Zwilling (1992:206) cites Buddhaghosa as providing an account of ubhatobyanjanaka in his Abhidharmakos'a that is almost identical to that provided by Bunmi.

¹¹ The popular American science-fiction and fantasy writer, Ursula Le Guin, describes a planet inhabited by such beings in her award winning novel The Left Hand of Darkness.

¹² This gloss is provided in a list of terms written either by the Thai translators of the Tipitaka or the editorial team and was not part of the original scripture.

¹³ According to Zwilling (1992:205), pandaka refers to men who "lack maleness," not to women, denoting a man who "fails to meet the normative sex role expectations for an adult male." This male-focussed orientation of the term could perhaps be expected to follow if, as Zwilling suggests, the derivation of the term is indeed "without testicles." The Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary does refer to a feminine derivative form of pandaka, itthipandika, as occurring in the Vinaya (Rhys Davids 1975:404), but Bunmi's extension of the term to denote women who fail to meet the normative sex role expectations for an adult woman is perhaps not strictly canonical and may be influenced by the common tendency to translate pandaka into Thai as kathoey. While in common Thai usage kathoey usually denotes a non-normative male, the term is occasionally used to denote a non-normative female and Thai dictionaries usually do not assign a determinate gender, whether male or female, to the term. The Royal Institute Thai language dictionary (1982:72) defines a kathoey as "A person who has both male and female genitals; a person whose mind (psychology) and behaviour are the opposite of their [biological] sex." In his Photjananukrom Thai (Thai dictionary) Manit Manitcharoen (1983:70) explicitly defines kathoey as denoting either a man or a woman and also attempts to correct popular Thai misconceptions with his definition. "Homosexuals or the sexually perverted are not kathoeys. The characteristic of a kathoey is someone who cross-dresses (lakka-phet) a male who likes to act and dress like a woman and has a mind like a woman, or a female who likes to act and dress like a man and who has a mind like a man."

¹⁴ Zwilling (1992:204) traces these five types of pandaka to Buddhaghosa's Samantapasadika, Asanga 's Abhidharmasamuccaya and Yas'omitra's commentary to the Abhidharmakos'a, adding that a similar list occurs in Hindu brahmanical medical and legal treatises.

¹⁵ Zwilling (1992:204) says that this type of pandaka "attains ejaculation through some special effort or artifice." Bunmi's description of opakkamika as eunuchs appears to follow another type of pandaka that Zwilling says is identified by Yas'omitra, the lunapandaka, which implies a man who has been intentionally castrated.

¹⁶ Zwilling (1992:204) cites Buddhaghosa as saying that a pakkhapandaka "becomes temporarily impotent for fourteen 'black days' of the month but regains his potency during the fourteen 'white days,' that is, from the new to the full moon."

¹⁷ According to Zwilling (1992:204) Buddhaghosa describes a napumsaka as "one who is congenitally impotent."

¹⁸ For example, in 1988 the prominent Thai social critic, Sulak Sivaraksa, criticised the administrative style of former Prime Minister, General Prem Tinsulanonda, in playing one wing of the Thai military off against another in order to remain in power, as being like that of a eunuch (Thai: khanthi) and a kathoey (Sulak 2531:125). General Prem has never married and is rumoured to be homosexual but as a career soldier, Korean War veteran and former head of the Thai Army he could not be described as matching the traditional Thai conception of an effeminate, cross-dressing kathoey.

¹⁹ According to the conservative Theravada tradition followed in Thailand, only a congregation that includes nuns correctly ordained according to that tradition has the authority to ordain another woman as a nun. With no correctly ordained Theravada nuns to be found in any modern country, it is impossible for the female sangha to be reconstituted.

²⁰ I thank Dr. Louis Gabaude for pointing out that Prasok and Khamhuno are pen names of the same author.

²¹ Note that being born female is here represented as kammic punishment for a man's sexual misconduct in a previous life.

²² The Vakkali story is recounted in a number of texts and has several versions. Malalasekera's (1960:799-800) useful summary of the different versions is included at the end of this article.

²³ The Pali term here is dusetha, which variously means "To spoil, ruin; to injure, hurt; to defile, pollute; to defame" (Rhys Davids, 1975:328). Zwilling (1992:207) prefers "to defile." However, the Thai language version translated here renders dusetha as prathutsarai, a term that means "to harm, injure or assault." The Thai translators appear to have understood the text as describing the pandaka as calling on the young monks to perform anal sex on him, and their choice of the Thai term prathutsarai appears to reflect an assumption that anal sex is associated with suffering assault.

²⁴ The laymen that the pandaka monk incited to have sex with him would not have been breaching the clerical code of celibacy and so the use of the term prathutsarai here should probably be interpreted as "to assault" rather than "to commit an offence," presumably referring more to the assumed violence (to manhood?) of the homosexual act than to the violation of a code of conduct.

²⁵ Buddhism, the middle path, has always been concerned with the maintenance of social order and since the Buddha's time the sangha has never claimed to provide a universal vehicle for the spiritual liberation of all individuals in society, explicitly excluding those who are considered to reflect badly on the monkhood in terms of prevailing social norms and attitudes. Pandaka are one of the groups excluded from ordination into the sangha and given the still common Thai conflation of pandaka/kathoey/homosexual/gay, homosexual men are also regarded as being excluded from the sangha.

²⁶ Other authorities cite a different origin for the ceremonial ordination question purisosi, referring to the Buddhist legend of a naga or serpent disguising itself as a man in order to obtain ordination into the sangha.

²⁷ Chris Lyttleton (1995) notes that, at least in many rural areas of Thailand, officially sponsored safe sex education programs conducted in the early 1990s have all but ignored unprotected homosexual sex as a risk activity, focussing almost solely on heterosexual sex. This further demonstrates the marginal nature of homosexuality in Thailand. In the early years of the pandemic homosexual men were isolated and stigmatised as the supposed source of HIV infection. But as the heterosexual population has become threatened in Thailand homosexual men, who are at just as great a risk of infection as heterosexual men, have tended to be ignored in the official safe sex campaigns.

²⁸ cp. Itivuttaka, (P.T.S.) section 92.

²⁹ The Buddha is often quoted in the canon as using this brief expression to accept monks into the sangha.

³⁰ Manorathapurani, Anguttara Commentary (S.H.B.) i. 140f.; the Apadana account (Apadana ii. 465f.) is similar. It says that the Buddha spoke to him from the foot of the rock. Vakkali jumped down to meet the Buddha, a depth of many cubits, but he alighted unhurt. It was on this occasion that the Buddha declared his eminence among those of implicit faith; also Dhammapadatthakatha iv. 118f. The Dhammapadatthakatha reports three verses uttered by the Buddha in which he assures Vakkali that he will help him and look after him.

³¹ Theragatha Commentary (S.H.B.), i. 420.

³² These are included in Theragatha, vss. 350-354.

³³ cp. Anguttara Nikaya (P.T.S.) i. 25; also Divyavadana (ed. Cowell & Neill, Cambridge) 49 and Sammoha-Vinodani, Vibhanga Commentary (P.T.S.) 276; Visuddhimagga (P.T.S.) i. 129.

³⁴ Sutta Nipata (P.T.S.) vs. 1146.

³⁵ Samyutta Nikaya (P.T.S.) iii. 119 ff.; Saratthappakasini, Samyutta Commentary ii. 229.

³⁶ Apadana (P.T.S.) ii. 46Sf.; Manorathapurani Anguttara Commentary (S.H.B.) i. 140.