As we are holding our breath in fear of what the political confrontation will bring, we begin to hear words of caution from many groups of people. Not from our monks, though.
Is it because of the traditional belief that monks should not get involved with politics?
Or is the silence because our monks are now in a mourning period for the late Supreme Patriarch?
If you think those are the reasons, I beg to differ.
At the red-shirt rally, we see defiant-looking monks wearing pendants featuring the portrait of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra on their saffron robes.
At the anti-government rally, we also see monks from the Santi Asoke sect and their Dhamma Army followers.
They might look stoic and calm. But their cry for "righteousness" is militaristic and _ at least to me _ very frightening.
Earlier this week, Chamlong Srimuang, the lay leader of Santi Asoke, declared what his movement saw as a solution for Thailand _ toppling the Yingluck government, closing down the country for five years to clean up the corrupt system, and seeking royal endorsement for the setting up of a "People's Council" of 99 "good people" to run the country.
I have long admired the Santi Asoke movement for their commitment to an alternative community life based on Buddhist simplicity and communal sharing.
I also admire Santi Asoke leader Phra Bhodhirak for not mincing his words when it comes to criticism of the mainstream clergy.
The sect's commitment to ecological farming, green living and holistic health is also laudable.
I am a faithful customer of the Santi Asoke green products. But I have to say I cannot buy Santi Asoke's answer for the country. Given Santi Asoke's war cry against the Preah Vihear ruling, I am also sad to see what started out as an alternative, new religious group, ending up as a militaristic, ultra-nationalistic movement that is irrelevant in the present time and drifting further away from the Buddha's path for peace.
Dictatorship is bad. But dictatorship based on deep ideological convictions, be they religious or political, is the deadliest form of extremism and leaves no room for compromise.
Does that mean mainstream monks who remain silent are politically neutral? Far from it.
Like our country, the clergy badly needs reform. Our monks _ who now face ostracism for voicing dissent _ need to be rescued from a feudal system that is oppressive, dictatorial and corrupt.
The clergy is not immune to partisan politics either. Like our country, it is divided along the lines of colour-coded politics. The acting supreme patriarch is even being perceived as having close links with the all-powerful Dhammakaya movement which supports the Shinawatra family.
This has heightened public concern that the Dhammakaya's capitalist version of Buddhism _ that money can buy merit and nirvana _ will dominate the entire clergy and Thai Buddhism.
And no matter who wins the latest political battle, the clergy will always be with the winner. If that doesn't make it a political body, what does?
Many people describe the current political crisis as essentially a morality crisis. The yellow shirts for one, argue that our democracy has turned corrupt because it is run by bad people. Their proposal: get good people to run the country, and forget the system.
The red shirts angrily respond by showing deep disdain not only for "good people" talk from the anti-government camps, but also for the focus on "goodness" as an important value. Their political answer: parliamentary elections and majority rule.
No, this is not a morality crisis. It's a crisis of polarised political positions driven by extremism.
Now, consider what the Buddha did when bloodshed was imminent right before him.
When relatives from his mother and father's sides were on the verge of a water war, he went to the scene and asked them what was more important to them, water or blood. And if blood was more important, then why shed blood for water?
That question ended the impending war.
As self-proclaimed Buddhists, we must ask ourselves a few questions too. Should we let hatred prevail over goodwill? Should we allow extremism to lead to more bloodshed? Are our political views worth dying for or having other people killed?
Only you have the answers.
Sanitsuda Ekachai is Editorial Pages Editor, Bangkok Post.