Thank you very much for your post which I enjoyed reading tremendously. I can see you have given careful thought and offered a set of carefully considered points which I appreciate.
I generally agree with the points you have made and feel you have offered a valid contrast and counterpoint to some of my perspectives which have helped balance the view.
Whilst I agree it is difficult to directly correlate or draw inferences between the economic and political situation of Buddhist majority countries with their religious practices, nevertheless the comparison of the relative fortunes of various South East Asian countries with respect to their religious outlook do provide interesting synergies and observations.
On one hand, the most successful countries from an economic standpoint are those that aligned themselves with a materialistic or capitalistic outlook (I am thinking Singapore, and until recently, Hong Kong) and a nominal adherence to democracy (although both countries are somewhat problematic in true adherence to democratic principles). The Buddhist countries have generally fared worse from both an economic and political stability perspective. The Islamic countries have achieved moderate but not outright success.
Of course, economic wealth and political stability are not the only yardsticks. Another poster mentioned spiritual wealth, or perhaps overall “happiness” (or lack of suffering). Here again, I would not say the Buddhist countries are significantly better than their neighbours, and in certain respects a lot worse.
As I understand it, Buddhist countries do not view monks and nuns as an “economic burden” but an integral part of society. There may be a sector that does, but not I think the general public. An analogy may be the public perception of creatives in a Western society. There are some that think artists living off government grants and unemployment benefits are a parasite, but I think the general public appreciates that these people have sacrificed much to fulfil their creative impulse. Some of the biggest beneficiaries to the arts have been wealthy people who see it as their duty to support what they see as a noble cause (and this tradition started with the Medici and perhaps even earlier). Similarly, as I understand it some of the biggest donators to the monasteries in Buddhist countries are the extremely wealthy who see it in similar terms.
The question I ask is not in terms of public perception but how do individual monks/nuns see the relationship between themselves and the alms givers? Do they see a need to reciprocate the kindness, or do they simply accept that this is tradition and a way of life? No doubt each individual will have a different position.
As you pointed out, Mahayana countries seem to have evolved to a different model where donations rather than alms have become the norm, and I believe monks/nuns play a larger part in providing services to the community, in the form of dhamma education, community projects and other services. Of course, Mahayana has always emphasised compassion towards all living beings as a higher priority than individual realisation, and this shift in focus has reflected in how Mahayana monasteries have interacted with the public.
You are absolutely right in that historically, the biggest value of the Sangha has been the preservation of the teachings of the Buddha, and the public also appreciates this enormous value to society and future generations. And recently of course, this has extended to the opening up of advanced medication practices to lay people through retreats and intensive courses which have greatly benefited a new class of Buddhists.
My personal feeling is that the preservation of Buddha’s teachings have become less relevant as we now have open access (through sites like SuttaCentral) so I think the role of the Sangha should also evolve to rebalance the value equation between monastics and lay people. I probably should stop here, as I feel if I say anything further I will offend a lot of people who will regard my comments as heresy. I do think the stagnantation of Theravadan Buddhism and the general decline of Buddhist majority societies can at least be partially attributed to inflexibility and over-adherence of outdated rules and practices, and that if we do not change we will risk further decline and corruption in the Buddha’s teachings and even greater irrelevance. Of course, many will argue the opposite and that it is precisely the rigidity that has helped preserve the Buddha’s teachings for so long, and to change will risk even further corruption.
Luckily we live in an age where it is possible for someone like me to be able to have essentially unfettered access to Buddha’s teachings and the ability to forge my own path without being dependent on any institution or tradition. This is a recent development, and for many years the only practical way to access Buddha’s teachings would have been through the Sangha. I see one of the real benefits of sites like SuttaCentral is to offer individuals like me the freedom to effect our own change and if enough individuals do it the change will propagate. May the freedom of choice continue.