Episode #104: The Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi Returns
“I wish I had an easy answer to this,” says Bhikkhu Bodhi in an equally forthright, follow-up discussion to his previous appearance on Insight Myanmar. That episode concerned the observance of sila in the context of the Myanmar resistance and generated an enormous response from listeners. Many were wholly supportive, and others critical, but all appreciated the venerable bhikkhu’s open and vulnerable willingness to engage honestly on a topic that many avoid by just taking an absolutist stance.
This conversation extends that discussion. The reality of the Myanmar military’s violent response to the democracy movement has caused angst among many devout Burmese Buddhists about how to defend themselves and their fundamental freedoms, while remaining true to their religion. It concerns the cold edge of sila (ethics) as it might melt along the warm edge of lived experience. Is sila black-and-white, that one either observes it absolutely or transgresses, regardless of the circumstances? Or perhaps in some situations, might there be more shades of grey? Bhikkhu Bodhi was asked questions posed not only by the moderator, but also by podcast listeners who wrote in their questions following the first interview.
Bhikkhu Bodhi refers to a book about nonviolent resistance by Gene Sharp, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, called From Dictatorship to Democracy. Interestingly, Professor Sharp wrote this at the request of a Burmese exile in 1993, and its first printing was in both Burmese and English. Bhikkhu Bodhi touted Sharp’s work as a comprehensive exploration about how to wear away the power of an oppressive regime as a possible roadmap for the Burmese people following the failed 1988 reforms, as well as how to maintain a non-violent stance while undermining the junta over the long term. However, on hearing descriptions of the horrible, mercurially violent reality that the Burmese people are now facing on a daily basis, Bhikkhu Bodhi admitted that perhaps the train of a non-violent solution had already left the station, and so he also spoke in more general terms about navigating sila with these real world conditions.
Bhikkhu Bodhi frames his perspective with two real-life situations. His first example puts us in Nazi Germany, and asks us to imagine that we know of a neighbor who is harboring a Jewish family. A few days later, the Gestapo comes looking for Jewish fugitives to cart off to a death camp, and asks us if we know of any in the area. Should we answer, “Yes, in that house over there,” because we 100% observe the precept of Right Speech? Or should we say, “I don’t, no,” technically breaking sila but saving the Jewish family’s life, and our neighbor from severe punishment? Bhikkhu Bodhi’s second example is to imagine being a policeman called in to stop a school shooter. Some children have already been killed. We see the shooter is about to aim his gun and kill even more. We can shoot him to stop him, but the distance is too far to aim for a non-lethal part of his body, like a hand or foot; but we can be sure if we aim at his chest, we will hit him and stop further carnage, though it is likely to be a kill shot. Should we think, “I observe the precept of Not Killing, so I will not pull the trigger now,” and allow even more innocent children to be killed until we can get close enough to take that discrete shot at his leg or hand? Or do we save the children by pulling the trigger and killing the assailant?
The farther one’s own reality is from needing to make these kinds of terrible, life-or-death choices, the easier it probably is to take an absolutist perspective on observing sila. However, those situations now unfortunately symbolize the “real reality” that the people of Myanmar face on a daily basis. What is compassionate guidance for those who do face such kinds of choices, who do have to act to save loved ones from the indiscriminate, murderous violence of the Tatmadaw, and restore basic safety and freedoms to their country? Is it to point out where the Jewish family is being hidden, or watch more children be gunned down? Within this context, Bhikkhu Bodhi explores the shades-of-grey territory in observing sila, and establishes two related frames of reference within which one can make reasonable choices.
The first is to know the intent in one’s mind. It is not the action itself, but the intention that matters from a karmic perspective, and Bhikkhu Bodhi is firm that one should never kill out of hate. The second is to be sure of the reason behind any action. If one has done one’s best to avoid killing, and is not motivated by hatred of the enemy, but one feels there is no other choice in order to save the lives of innocent people, it’s the best one can do. So there is the overarching nature of the precepts that one should always strive to observe on the one hand, and the fraught, nitty-gritty ethical decisions one is sometimes faced with in this very imperfect and sometimes horrifying world on the other. One does what one must, motivated by trying to do the most good in a difficult situation.
Bhikkhu Bodhi reiterates that interestingly, in the suttas, the Buddha is never depicted as being faced with these kinds of moral dilemmas. And he reminds us that this is the complex, modern, 21st century world we live in, not the 5th century BCE. So he says that the appropriate teaching around these issues is perhaps not as “obvious” as one might think.
Asked about the appropriateness of monks overturning their bowls in a form of traditional protest around political matters, Bhikkhu Bodhi feels it is a strong and legitimate statement by the monastic community if the situation demands it. It symbolizes, in a Buddhist society, that the perpetrator of a harmful action is denied their ability to make merit by donating alms. In the case of the Tatmadaw, if that’s what it takes to cause them to reflect on their actions, then it is the appropriate thing to do. While technically this has traditionally been applied in cases involving acts against the Sangha directly, Bhikkhu Bodhi feels that the spirit of this act of protest can be extrapolated onto the evil acts against the laity, which in the case of the Tatmadaw includes the rape, murder and abduction of innocents, and policies which exacerbate the people’s suffering by design, as well as some acts directly against monks and nuns who defy their illegitimate rule.
This leads to the wider question of whether monks should concern themselves with “politics.” As with his discussion of sila, Bhikkhu Bodhi offers a nuanced, articulate response. On the one hand, if by “politics” we mean supporting political parties or particular candidates for political office, then he believes monks and nuns should not. However, if “politics” is extended to include non-religious issues that impact society and even human life on this planet—like the existential issue of climate change, and racial inequity, and homelessness and food insecurity, etc.—then he feels that monastics can and should play a role as a moral force for good in the world, and the betterment of the human condition. In order to enact that role effectively, Bhikkhu Bodhi also advocates a wider education for lifelong monastics, including a curriculum of secular topics so that they can have a better understanding of the world in which they hope to engage.
Returning to the broad topic of sila, Bhikkhu Bodhi was asked to respond to the well-known example of the Bodhisattva who, in an earlier incarnation, selflessly offered himself as the food for hungry tiger cubs. Should it be taken as an exemplar of Buddhist teaching on how we should act in the world, and if such a story can be applied to the present political situation in Myanmar? He replied, “First, it's not from the Pali Jataka collection, but it's from a northern Buddhist article collection. And the point of that particular story is to show how the Bodhisattva, in previous lives, was willing to sacrifice even his life in order to fulfill the dana paramita, the perfection of giving.” He emphasized that it was not in any way intended to be an injunction for passivity if faced by oppression or persecution at the hands of a tyrannical government. Moreover, he noted stories from Mahayana literature where a killing was considered justified because it prevented a much greater evil, as well as examples from Buddhist history where religious kings mustered armies to stop invasions of their land. He did not say that these examples justified the virtue of “killing for good purpose”; rather, they illustrate the grey area of applied versus absolute sila in the real world. He admits that the Theravada tradition has not really reconciled this murky intersection of life’s challenges and following the precepts scrupulously, which can result in falling back on an unrealistically fundamentalist interpretation of the texts.
Bhikkhu Bodhi was asked to address the concept of “collective karma”—that the actions of a group create good or bad karma—as applied to the situation in Myanmar, and that perhaps the present situation in the country is just the ripening of that ‘group’s’ past karma. But he believes there is no such doctrine in Buddhism in the abstract, because karma is always generated by the intention regarding specific acts. Theoretically, if a group of people all agreed on performing a specific act for the same reason, then perhaps that might be an example of collective karma that resulted in a collective ripening of that karma, but that would be very unusual. He goes on to say, “[Besides,] I don't think that everything that happens to people, even that happens to them passively without their volitional consent, is happening as the ripening of previous karma. [K]arma is just one particular order of causation, intersecting with an operating in collaboration with various other orders of causation…So I don't think we have to see or should necessarily see what is occurring in Myanmar today to be the result to the fruition of some karma that the Burmese people, or the Myanmar people in the past, committed.”
Finally, some Western meditators have opined that the most important and helpful thing they can do for the people of Myanmar is to send their Metta (loving kindness) and gratitude. While saying that sending Metta and having gratitude are wonderful, Bhikkhu Bodhi explains, “It would be a wholesome quality within oneself to develop that kind of gratitude [for the teachings that have come from Myanmar], and also maybe to extend thoughts of gratitude towards the people of Myanmar. But …[if one] doesn't take any further action, that could be a kind of cop out, or what's called a ‘spiritual bypass’. At the same time that one is experiencing the gratitude and sending the gratitude to the people and the teachers of Myanmar, one can find ways to express that gratitude and action by finding opportunities to connect with organizations with associations that are committed to opposing the military junta and supporting the resistance movement in Myanmar.”