New Mandala

6 responses so far ↓

• 1 hrk // Jan 12, 2008 at 4:40 am

  Even though the international media jumped on the issue of monks demonstrating as an expression of a protest movement, and envisioned a “saffron revolution” comparable to the “orange revolution” in Ukrainia etc. what happened in September was neither a revolution nor an attempt to push the junta away, or to try to find a new unity in the country after the National Convention.

  Unfortunately, the announcement of the FCC ignores quite a few issues that easily lead to misunderstandings: Firstly that monks play a political role in Burma is nothing new nor special. The anti-colonial movements were lead and influenced by monks. Even later on during the protests against Ne Win monks always were part of those protesting. Neither the British nor the Burmese felt restricted in their actions against the protesters. Thus, it is not such a special case that the military kills monks. Secondly, it should be remembered that not all citizen of Burma are Buddhists. In fact one reason for the rebellion of the Kachin in the sixties had been that U Nu wanted to establish Buddhism as state religion. Furthermore since fifty years most minorities suffer from the Buddhist Burmese Military, a fact too often ignored in international reporting on Burma, which still focuses on the NLD. It is certainly not only the “the horrifying crimes committed against the monks in particular (that) have laid bare the false piety of the junta.” I doubt whether the Junta has any piety. In fact, I take it as cynical to speak of piety and the junta. The junta lives in its own reality, which might best be described as “psychotic” and therefore it is wishful thinking that the acts against the monks “will have far-reaching consequences, not least inside the military which contains countless families that would normally consider themselves devout Buddhists.”

  Together with the earlier argument of the announcement, where it is pointed out that the junta should take advice “from some of the wisest elements in Burmese society”, the above sentence has a rather strange and I hope unintended meaning: Does it imply that the Buddhist Burmese monks form the “wisest” elements and thus, by implication, advice from the minorities is not “wise”? Does it imply furthermore that while killing Buddhist Burmans might have far reaching consequences, killing Karen, Kachin or Rohingha does not put a strain on the conscience of the soldiers and generals? At least they do it with no restrain since fifty years. Even the FCC should keep in mind that any liberalization or even democratization in Burma is only possible if the minorities are part of the process. Thus, they should not be left out only because their plight has become so common that it seems not to be worthwhile to report about it.

• 2 Kyi May Kaung // Jan 12, 2008 at 8:13 am

  I am doing an update this evening in Silver Spring, MD.

• 3 Land of Snarls // Jan 17, 2008 at 3:25 am

  FCC was packed out for this event, which provided an opportunity for the International Burmese Monks Organisation to remind us that the struggle continues, & that IBMO intends to support it, both inside & outside of Burma. Their handouts had lists of murdered monks (7), incarcerated monks (38) and nuns (6), including their whereabouts, where known, & monasteries which had been raided (53), with items that had been stolen. There were no surprises.

  Acharn Sulak gave a short talk, living up to his reputation as a Plain Speaking Man. He began by announcing that his case against the Thai Government for confiscating copies of his most recent book , & making it impossible to distribute it, was due to commence at the Administrative Court today (Wed. 16th). He then went on to rubbish the Thai Government (too ‘obsessed with the funeral of Phra Pi Nang’ to focus on anything else), and give his opinions of the Burmese Sangha (’free’ – i.e. of government influence), and the Thai Sangha (in the main, ‘gutless’). This was all well-received by the audience.

  A. Sulak also referred to the Japanese Buddhists as ‘funeral Buddhists,’ which seemed odd because one of the guest monks was a Japanese one, who later spoke. The latter did not, however, address the Burmese question, preferring to announce that he was a founder of another international monks’ network, and showing us a rather silly-looking flag which would be their symbol.

  During Question Time a rather obnoxious Burmese man, who identified himself as a lawyer working for Burmese commercial interests in Thailand, performed a rather prolonged floorshow, in which he threw himself on the floor & prostrated himself three times to each of the two senior monks (but not to A. Sulak !), as the audience & the chairperson muttered & looked at their watches. The monks behaved with what can only be called admirable ’sangha-froid.’ He then went on to criticise the Burmese Sangha for their adoption of the term ’saffron revolution.’ He pointed out rather smugly that his dictionary of English defines a revolution as an essentially violent act. Various audience members could be heard muttering that he should get a better dictionary. The monks responded that it was the media who had given the protest movement that title, not the sangha. He seemed not to absorb this explanation & continued to prattle on. Eventually the chairperson ordered him to leave the microphone, & he did, after being instructed to do so 3 or 4 times. A stunning example of the utter insensitivity & stupidity of Those Who Just Don’t Get It!

• 4 david w // Jan 18, 2008 at 3:33 am

  Land of Snarls,

  Japanese Buddhism is often referred to as ‘funeral Buddhism’ because so much of its social role and significance is prominently (and sometimes only) at play during the need of families for funeral services. Some Japanese don’t even know what sect of Buddhism they belong to (and by extension, what temple their family is registered at) until a family member dies and they have to arrange for the services. Modern Japanese Buddhist sects are working hard to make themselves more relevant beyond funerals, but it has proven a difficult battle actually. I’m sure the Japanese Buddhist attending the event understood the reference, although most of the audience probably didn’t. Of course, why did Sulak even feel the need to make such a characterization given the topic of discussion? Presumably to show that Thai or Burmese Buddhism isn’t so narrowly constricted in its social role?

• 5 Kyi May Kaung // Jan 18, 2008 at 4:03 am

  Hmm — this is a microcosm of many international events I have gone to since 2001 and in decades since 1988. Between the sublime and the ridiculous.

  Thank you, Land of Snarls writer.

  New Mandala has a link to my blogsite.

  I commend FCC for their work to reveal the Burmese junta’s atrocities.

  Yes, the Movement is full of grandstanding people, but Sulak and many other Thai people have spoken up for Burmese rights.

  The monks were absolutely right that “Saffron Revolution” is a term coined by the media, and it’s a revolution of the spirit and the psyche, which may be more important than one with physical weapons.

  As for the clown calling himself a lawyer — wish you all could have chucked him to Avici Hell. (Ah Wi Si in Burmese)

  I want to share with you one funny incident when in 2001 the Burmese demonstrators in DC apparently stole the overcoat of a leading junta apologist. (Clue — he was not Burmese but a Caucasian).

  It was a very cold day in November and his teeth were chattering as he asked where he could buy a new coat.

  In Japan in 2000, junta supporters physically roughed up the audience at a Burma talk — and the reporter managed to record sounds of the thumps.

  KMK

• 6 Land of Snarls // Jan 18, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  David W: Yes, often referred to as ‘funeral Buddhism.’ I think most of us were aware of that. But what seemed odd was that it was said in a rather blunt & confrontational way, in front of a Japanese monk, and at the end of a fairly scathing series of remarks on the state of Buddhism in Thailand. Not terribly ‘kreng jai,’ so a bit of a shock.

  It seems that Sulak was pointing out that the Burmese sangha is taking its responsibility to the people much more seriously than others, by standing up & criticizing the junta. He made it fairly clear that he feels the Thai sangha should be doing likewise, i.e. not merely in solidarity with the Burmese, but also about the corrupt state of Thai society.

Leave a Comment