Salt * Wet * Fish

The recent events with China/Tibet and Burma made some people question what role in politics should Buddhists and Buddhism play? And more especially what roles in politics should the monastics play?

In general, most of the teachings within Buddhism is towards inwards reflection and letting go of or having detachment for worldly and sensual desires. The more one moves towards those goals, the more one moves towards being awakened or attaining nibbana.

Some may wonder: “Isn’t Buddhist teachings also about helping others?”. Indeed, the core teachings of Buddhism does not isolates oneself from the world, only worldly desires. In fact, the more one detaches from desires, the more one is capable of helping others. In helping others, it really means to helping them develop the wisdom to rid one of desires and self.

It does not mean to help on gain independence from another other or to help on gain democracy. Of course, the achievement of those goals could possibility help to elevate physical, mental and material sufferings that people may have. The achievements of those goals could be a catalyst for further development of wisdom, which leads to detachment from desires and self. But at what cost to human lives and destruction on both sides, in order to achieve those goal, is something most of us are too blinded by our desires, conceptions and perceptions to know.

What about the lay Buddhists? There are no restrictions in the teachings on protests nor the desire to be democratic. But there is a reminder to the lay Buddhists to ensure that their actions take into consideration of the precepts of not killing, lying, stealing and intoxication. So in the fight to gain independence or democracy, one should not kill or harm others nor incite others to harm or kill nor loot and destroy other’s possessions recklessly and one should not lie, for example, reporting a figure of 1.5 million dead when its only 0.5 million, just to gain sympathy on the world stage

What about the monastics, the monks and nuns? In Buddhism, the monastics are also referred to as the home leaver. Not just a person leaving the home, but a person whose wish is to leave his/her attachments to name, ego and desires of the material world. The person also leaves behind their identity, ethnicity, nationality and even gender. The Vinaya, monastics code of conduct, is most strict on monastics engaging in world affairs. So to see monks and nuns protesting, especially those in Burma, whose tradition strictly adheres to the Vinaya, would strike one as strange.

Some monastics like the Chinese Mahayana and Tibetan Vajrayana adhere to another (I would say more liberal) code of conduct, which frees them from some of the shackles of the Vinaya. That is why you can see Chinese monks handling money directly or even drawing a salary. So in this sense it may be hard to say whether or not those monks or nuns can protest against the Olympics or the freedom of Tibet.

Many people have used the examples of Buddhist text to justify their involvement in politics. It is true that in the text, rulers would approach Buddha for advice and he gave them advice on governance of a land. Indeed, in the teaching of the universal monarch, Buddha gave examples of how a universal monarch would rule his land and his people to achieve a wealthy and happy land and subjects. One of the examples most often cited is the incident where Buddha stood in the middle of the river to prevent 2 kingdoms from going to war over ownership of water. Hence, people claimed that on this basis, monks and nuns should follow the example of the Buddha and be involved in politics.

However, I feel that many of them have been mistaken.

Firstly, Buddha only gave sermons on politics and governance when he was asked for advice by the rulers of the land. In the case of Tibet/China and even Burma, the monastics was not asked rather they were trying to shove their views of governance and what is right onto the “rulers” of the land, whether or not those “rulers” are legitimate in their views. Buddha never incited others to protest in the name of democracy or freedom.

Secondly, in the water war, Buddha prevented war on both sides. This is not the case in the 2 events, where more bloodshed, anger, hatred and ignorance where created than the problem the monks and nuns were trying to solve.

Thirdly, the monastics are not necessarily enlightened beings, Buddha was. Hence whatever the Buddha said or did was from a all-seeing, all-knowing and awakened mind. This does not necessarily apply to the monastics in both cases and I feel that the monks/nuns who dare to compare themselves to the Buddha like that is just full of ego.

At the end of the day, as Buddhists, we must ask ourselves: “What is the purpose of being a monk or nun?” Is it not to take up the intention to develop insight and wisdom and detach onself from worldly desires and the ego and to leave the home (thus giving up one’s identity, nationality, ethnicity and gender)? If one cannot do that as a monk or nun, then it should be suggested that one should disrobe and become a lay Buddhist, and do as one pleases.

Protesting monks and nuns should only be protesting against their own pride and ego.