Why Buddhism cannot thrive under a dictatorship
Some observers have been confused about the tenuous relationship between Buddhism and the Burmese military. Because the Tatmadaw justifies its brutality partly out of a concern to “protect” Buddhism, some many wonder if in fact the generals are serious followers of the Buddha’s teachings. On the other hand, because the military has perverted Buddhist doctrines towards its own ends, others have begun to express concern in misunderstanding basic Buddhist tenants, believing in the superstitious interpretations of the generals at face value. Ashin Sarana weighs powerfully into this discussion in the following essay, demonstrating unequivocally that the true spirit of Buddhism cannot ever thrive within a dictatorship. As someone with a depth of knowledge in both Burmese history as well as a scholar of Buddhism, his essay is a must-read. Please take the time to do so, and to share this with others so that we may stop the spread of fake news.
On the 1st of February 2021, the Burmese military (Tatmadaw) staged a coup to overthrow the legally and democratically elected government in Myanmar. They did so in order to avoid the complete and imminent loss of their political power because of increasing democratization. Outwardly, the regime presents itself as the defender of Buddhism. In this article, however, I will try to explain why I believe Buddhism cannot thrive under this dictatorship.
The military regime is based on fear, lies, and blind obedience. With my own eyes, and also hearing of the horrors perpetrated by the Tatmadaw from students and news reports, the brutality and self-centered nature of the military regime are all too clear. It is a system where the levers of power are held by the hands of a self-appointed few who are not interested in the views and hardships of the people; they follow their own agenda, violently suppressing dissent, mismanaging the financial and political resources of the nation, which has thrown it into poverty. The Tatmadaw randomly murders people in the streets using drugged soldiers, raids people’s homes to shoot and kill toddlers with their parents, and locks up preschool children, doctors, and engineers in the prisons. They violently beat and torture healthcare workers, illegally occupy schools and medical institutions, replace educated financial and telecommunication professionals with uneducated toadies, painfully blanket the entire society with censorship, surveillance, religious and political abuse, and have crippled the country’s energy resources. Moreover, due to the ineptitude of the ruling generals, they have resorted to bombarding the villages of innocent people – sending tens of thousands into homelessness and extreme poverty to live in the forests without food, clothes, and shelter — rather than engage directly with local defense forces.
In contrast to all the intense suffering that the Tatmadaw continues to willfully cause, Buddhism is the way out of suffering, a spiritual path that is based on love, truth, and a practical, down-to-the-ground application of the highest wisdom and intellect.
In the Ādhipateyya Sutta (”In Charge,” in the Collection of Numbered Discourses), the Buddha maintains that there are really no secrets in the world (natthi loke raho nāma). He explains this by observing that one’s bad deeds are known to oneself whether one reveals them or hides them behind a lie. The emphasis on truth, reason, and open-minded exploration of one’s inner and outer world characterizes the Buddhist teachings like salt does the waters of an ocean. For example, in the Buddha’s discourse, “Turning the Wheel of Dhamma” (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, in the Collection of Connected Discourses), the Buddha promulgated the Four Noble Truths, which teaches his followers the unavoidable necessity of exploring, understanding, and humbly acknowledging the unsatisfactory nature of the world and its causes: ignorance and craving. The main point is to openly observe and investigate reality as-it-is, and honestly confront one’s own views in juxtaposition to the true nature of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self in all things.
The four requirements for development on the Buddhist Path, as mentioned by the Buddha in the second Sāriputta discourse (Dutiyasāriputta Sutta, in the Collection of Connected Discourses), are associating with a wise person, listening to the true Teaching from him or her, wisely reflecting on that Teaching, and applying it in practice. Wise reflection consists of pondering over the meaning, understanding the meaning, and properly analyzing, investigating, and questioning the meaning of the instruction one has received. Interestingly, the Buddha clearly accommodated the diversity of his students and followers. For example, instead of determining a fixed, tight, unchanging structure of rules and guidance, he provided a plethora of options that students and followers can choose from. In the aspect of virtue, Buddhist practitioners can choose to follow five precepts, or eight, or ten, or 227. We learn in the Pāḷi guide of meditation teachers, the Visuddhimagga, that there are forty meditation objects to choose from in order to develop concentration. In the Discourse on the establishment of mindfulness (Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, in the Collections of Middle and Long Discourses), there are twenty-two possible methods of insight practice (vipassanā). Although it is recommended that meditators find a teacher and follow his or her meditation instruction, from the Commentary to the “Great Discourse on Emptiness” (Mahāsuññatasuttavaṇṇanā, in the Collection of Middle Length Discourses) and the “Story of the Goldsmith Elder” (Suvaṇṇakārakattheravatthu, from the Dhammapada), it is acknowledged that a teacher might not provide suitable instruction, and in that case, students always have the freedom to leave their present teacher and follow another.
Although the Buddha’s instruction on monastic rules seems to be very strict and unchangeable, in fact, we see that the Buddha was always open to adjusting or even canceling rules whenever monastics had reasonable difficulties in following them. We can see throughout the Vinaya Piṭaka, the monastic canon of discipline, that when a monk did something wrong, he received an admonishment from the Buddha along with a prohibition or instruction on how to live the monastic life in a better way; however, if they returned to the Buddha to explain they had difficulties in following the new instruction, the Buddha often adjusted, or at times even rescinded it. We can see examples of this in the rule of ten monks being required to ordain a new monk, the prohibition of sandals with many linings, the limited number of days when monks are allowed to take a bath, the restriction on the material for sitting cloth, or the limit on the ownership of extra robes: some of the above were rescinded, or even canceled, after venerable Mahākaccāna’s humble request to the Buddha (a brief note included in the Monastic Code’s Chapter on Leather, Cammakkhandhaka). Literally, every single rule in the monastic code has exceptions, many of which were added by the Buddha, himself, after monks consulted with him about their challenges in adhering to them. The Buddha also decided that after his demise, if monks did not agree with each other on the interpretation of a rule, they could either make a resolution based on the majority opinion or “cover it by grass” (tiṇavatthāraka), in other words, putting the disagreement aside and carrying on with their lives. So this is the first reason why I believe that ultimately, Buddhism cannot thrive under the military dictatorship in Myanmar: while the junta leadership is rigid and secretive, and revolves solely around what is best for the ruling elite, Buddhism is flexible and honest and revolves around what works best for the individual within the overall framework of the Dhamma.
Being such polar opposites, how could they co-exist? In fact, the Tatmadaw has already driven a wedge in the Burmese Sangha, which has split into pro- and anti-Tatmadaw factions. We know from the Dhammapada story of Kosambaka (Kosambakavatthu) that the Buddha never appreciated when monks split into factions even if they believed it was for good reason. And at least as I see it, those who support the dictator in most cases are not virtuous, they do not follow the monastic rules, they are not developed in meditation and their knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures is by definition questionable, considering their support of the dictator’s evil decisions. However, because of the dictator’s lavish support and praise, this faction thrives, gaining ever-growing power. So, the monastic community is split not because of monastic rules or a disagreement about the teachings, but for political reasons completely unrelated to their monastic life. They may even reject correct Dhamma Teachings if they are presented by the opposing faction. Dhamma can then become a vehicle used to express anger and intensify discord in the community of Noble people, instead of supporting peace, friendliness, mutual understanding, patience, and wisdom. In the “Discourse on Assemblies” (Parisā Sutta, in the Collection of Numbered Discourses and in the “Discourse on Defilements” [Upakkilesa Sutta] in the Collection of the Middle Length Discourses), the Buddha encouraged monks to live with each other and blend like milk with water, looking at each other with loving eyes.
The second area where I see an incompatibility between a dictatorship and the full exercise of one’s Buddhist beliefs concerns speech. A hallmark of dictatorships–and the one in Myanmar is a prime example– is that they are afraid of, and so forcibly suppress, the exercise of free speech. Just implied criticism of the Tatmadaw or its leaders can result in imprisonment and torture, whether in political speech or artistic expression or even because of something quite harmless. On the other hand, freedom of speech is essential in both monastic and lay Buddhist communities. Idle chatter, lies, backbiting, and divisive speech are strongly discouraged, while an honest, upright, and humble expression of opinion is the basic quality of a disciple who is either Enlightened or is on the Path towards Enlightenment, as we learn from the popular “Discourse on Loving Kindness“ (Mettāsutta). According to the “Discourse on Advice to Siṅgāla” (Siṅgālovāda Sutta, in the Collection of Long Discourses), loving-kindness in both mind, speech, and action is the duty of laypersons when they deal with monks; encouraging others to do the same, and discouraging bad actions, are presented as the basis of a thriving society. Monks who do not confront another monk who acts in an evil way commit an offense simply by their silence (Saṃghādisesa 12). According to the Commentary to the “Discourse on Rhinoceros’ Horn” (Khaggavisāṇa Sutta), those who are friends will admonish and restrain their friends from performing bad actions. Those who practice the Buddha’s teachings should not be afraid of criticism from others but instead acknowledge and receive it with gratitude, and the determination to avoid that behavior in favor of nobler and purer action, which we can read in the “Discourse on Guilt” (Attānuvāda Sutta, in the Collection of Numbered Discourses). So it is clear just how much, in contrast, the military dictatorship in Myanmar is to Buddhist teachings and practice regarding speech.
In fact, it seems to me that the Tatmadaw, in its essence, is at odds with the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha, in the “Great Peacock, Story of a Previous Life” (Mahāhaṃsajātaka, Jātaka no.534), provided ten specific recommendations for rulers to lead their country towards prosperity, and ensure a righteous and praiseworthy character for themselves. The Buddha’s recommendations are: (1) Generosity, (2) Morality, (3) Sacrifice, (4) Uprightness, (5) Softness, (6) Austerity, (7) Non-hatred (love), (8) Non-violence, (9) Patience, and (10) Non-opposition to the will of citizens. In each case, there seems to be a conflict between the Buddha’s advice and the characteristics of a dictatorship.
The Tatmadaw generals have generously supported some temples and projects to make merit. However, to me this seems insincere, done for propaganda purposes or just to atone for all the brutality and terror it has visited on the Burmese people. Moreover, the very nature of its policies is selfish and self-aggrandizing.
If the Tatmadaw acted in moral ways, there would be no large-scale repression, no stealing of the nation's resources, no lying or propaganda, etc.
The only thing the military leaders have sacrificed is the good people of Myanmar in order to maintain their hold on wealth and power.
Corruption, bribery, and deceptions are endemic to the Tatmadaw; human beings without Dhamma frequently abuse the power they have, and total power invites excessive abuse.
Softness would allow for peaceful dissent and the expression of criticism, and would not forcibly repress dissent.
As far as I am aware, and according to what my reliable Burmese sources tell me, Burmese dictators use their power to maintain a luxurious lifestyle and accrue even more wealth.
I can not believe that this military junta has true love for the Burmese people, otherwise they would listen to and follow the wishes of the nation–and voluntarily relinquish their power.
Again, the Tatmadaw forcibly, violently and quite often brutally suppresses dissent.
Patience in this sense doesn’t mean the ability to withstand the disapproval of people. Rather,it means patiently maintaining a noble attitude and never resorting to evil–again, something that contradicts the very nature of the military dictatorship.
Non-opposition to the will of citizens is the opposite of what the Tatmadaw does on a daily basis, which I have explained in various ways above.
The glue that holds Buddhist society together is the monastic community, yet as noted above, the Sangha is fractured because of this dictatorship, causing some Burmese Buddhists to lose faith. Laypeople who recognize the evil of the dictatorship support the monks who are opposed to the dictator and openly and severely criticize the other monastics. Yet the monastic community as a whole should serve as the inspiration for the ethical life for the laity. They provide the teachings of the Buddha for anyone who comes with the desire to listen. According to the Discourse on Morality (Sīla Sutta) and Discourse on An Adept (Asekha Sutta, in the Collection of Numbered Discourses), one who has achieved the highest level of Enlightenment is considered to be the “unsurpassed field of merit in the world” (anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassa). In the “Discourse to Kimila” (Kimila Sutta), in the Collection of Numbered Discourses) we learn that if laypeople and monks disrespect each other, the Buddha’s Dispensation will disappear.
Although a democratic government doesn’t prevent disagreements between laypeople and monks, or even between monks, themselves, it does provide access to information and allows free inquiry and open discussion on whatever the monks and laypeople want to know. This freedom of information helps prevent misinformation and false propaganda, it helps people gain a better understanding of each other’s views and provides a peaceful environment to agree or disagree on non-essential matters, while still supporting and trusting each other.
In sum, the Tatmadaw suppresses truth, promotes lies and evil, and creates fiercely oppositional factions in the people and Sangha alike. Therefore, it is by no means suitable for a Buddhist country like Myanmar. Buddhism is the path of revealing, sharing, and cherishing truth, it promotes honesty, love, and patience, and creates harmony and peace even among people who disagree with each other. To me, they are mutually exclusive.
May all beings be happy and healthy,
monk Saraṇa