Transcript: Episode #104: The Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi Returns
Following is the full transcript for the interview with Bhikkhu Bodhi, which appeared on May 19, 2022. This transcript was made possible by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and has not been checked by any human reader. Because of this, many of the words may not be accurate in this text. This is particularly true of speakers who have a stronger accent, as AI will make more mistakes interpreting and transcribing their words. For that reason, this transcript should not be cited in any article or document without checking the timestamp to confirm the exact words that the guest has really said.
Host 01:11
know that our podcast platform was initially focused on interviews about the spiritual paths that Myanmar offers to meditators and monastics, but when the coup hit, we couldn't in good conscience continue to tell those stories with many monastic sites on fire or occupied by soldiers, and the Burmese people living under the military's Reign of Terror. So we expanded our mission to cover a wider range of posts cool Myanmar stories. Still, some guests have a unique insight into the intersection of the spiritual with the worldly, allowing a deeper understanding of both these planes. Today's guest fits squarely into that category as you will soon hear.
02:29
At the end of the day. Bhikkhu Bodhi thank
Host 03:03
you so much for coming back to continue our discussion on this important matter, examining this Buddhist response to the ongoing crisis in Myanmar.
Bhikkhu Bodhi 03:13
Thank you for inviting me.
Host 03:15
So, first, I just wanted to thank you so much for your last interview, and we received a great amount of feedback. And I'd like to read a few statements just to set the stage for what follows. One person wrote, I'm grateful for the interview grateful for both the interviewer and Bhikkhu Bodhi. Both of you exhibit courage and strong moral character during this interview. Thank you for this gift, it is a gem. Another listener said this was the most impressive interview I've ever listened to as a long term practitioner of the Dhamma Bhikkhu Bodhi was nuanced, articulate and unself protective in his thoughtful answers, offering realistic if deeply challenging options for us to pursue. And final statement, I want to express my appreciation for Bhikkhu Bodhi his courage and compassion, and willingness to engage with really testing material with such openness and care. It was deeply inspiring, and I'm very grateful. The reason I share some of this feedback, which I should mention I've never done before in a podcast show is not to pat ourselves on the back for a performance that was done, but rather to show to indicate that none of these comments are actually suggesting I agree with everything you said or you're on the right side of this or this this is the correct answer. Rather, the statements are showing an appreciation for the courage to engage in a complex situation a real life situation in which there are simply no easy answers and that these listeners these practitioners appreciated such an honest and difficult dialogue. Even when the ideas and thoughts expressed were not so comfortable and maybe not so great. And I would like to think that is where this conversation follows today and being able to talk about a very difficult situation and do our best with it knowing that we're certainly not going to get everything right. And I think there is a mature understanding among listeners who appreciate that. On your side, you referenced at the end of the last conversation, that this was one of the toughest interviews you've had as a monk. And I'm curious, what about it was particularly so difficult? Well,
Bhikkhu Bodhi 05:36
I think what made it so difficult is that the situation you described was one in which we would say that adherence to a strict strict moral code advocated and Buddhism in a very literal and very scrupulous way, might not work as a viable solution. And so this is a situation which I would say, presents us with maybe conflicting and even incompatible moral imperatives. And yet, this is a real situation. And so we have to find a way to negotiate between the conflicting claims that the situation imposes upon us, and to do so in a way which is, I would say, preserves our moral integrity, but also responds to the realistic and very human demands that the situation makes upon us. Now, so it doesn't always work in a situation like that, to simply say, just follow the precepts unconditionally, and everything is going to be all right, exactly as you wish.
Host 06:43
I feel the same way. And in my own reflection, on our last conversation, I realized that many of the questions I had had an underlying an unexamined premise of how to how did the Burmese achieve their victory and their freedom and their dignity and human rights, while also maintaining a strict Buddhist moral, spiritual path as they do, and trying to find that intersection and one of the big insights, sad insights I had somebody sometime between the previous interview and preparing for this one was, what if this unexamined assumption is actually not viable in the world? What if there actually is a choice between following a strict observation of Buddhist precepts and submitting to a lifetime of terror and control or of trying to secure your freedom in the most moral way you can, knowing that given the evil of the enemy, you're against, that you are going to have to violate something you hold sacred? And what if that is what we're faced with instead of the belief that there could be an intersection?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 07:54
Yeah, well, I was reflecting on this very same problem over the last, you know, few weeks. And what I've come up with to try to deal with this problem, and this is just like a tentative proposal. But what I would do is to posit two distinct but partly overlapping, moral codes. So let us say ways of measuring methods of moral reflection. One is a way method of moral reflection, that is derived from and completely consistent with the moral standpoint of the Dharma itself. So this is a code of this entails a code of conduct, that's determined by the aims of the Buddha's teaching and governed by the aims of the teaching. And that is leading towards what we might call moral and spiritual progress, towards inner cultivation, the inner cultivation of one's moral and spiritual capacities, the type of action that generates purely wholesome karma with the potential to lead to a fortunate rebirth, and the kind of practices that will lead ultimately towards liberation towards nibbana. And so such observance of such a code or such a way of moral reflection, even though it's what should prevail under normal circumstances, when one is living under relatively peaceful conditions, but it might come into collision with the hard facts that we face when living in the real world. When we run up against certain concrete challenges that present that life presents to us in this very imperfect world in which strict adherence to this moral code doesn't always Intel will lead to the most desirable outcome. And so this is where I would introduce the second moral code. And this is what I would call a moral code or a way of moral reflection that is designed to promote the maximum could feasible under the limiting and imperfect conditions of the human life in which we're living that we're living. And so the second barrel code should try to conform as closely as possible to the first code. But we also recognize that from time to time through moral reflection, it's necessary to make certain concessions or even compromises in order to secure the maximum good or to avoid dreadful types of harm. In a way, this is a kind of moral theory, this would be partly a consequence, consequentialist type of moral reflection, in which we take account not of rules in the abstract, but of the consequences of courses of action. So we work prime a fast say that as on as the first basis, we work with moral rules, and these would be moral rules that are derived from that are in accord with the ethical system of the Buddha's teaching. But we also have to take occasionally into occasional consideration the consequences of applying the rules to see what kind of consequences would apply, would follow if we apply the rule strictly, and what kind of consequences would follow if we have to depart from the rules in order to secure the the good, the best outcome from the situation. And I wanted to take some examples of how the second moral code would work. And I'll begin with a relatively non controversial example. And this would be it's sort of a very commonly cited paradigm case, where you're living in Germany at the time when the Nazis are or have gotten the stronghold on power, and they're hunting down Jewish people. And now you see a Jewish family comes to your neighbor's house, and you understand that your neighbor is providing shelter to the Jewish family. And now, a day or two later, the Nazi the Gestapo comes along, or the SS comes along and starts questioning people on the street, asking them if they've seen or know of any families, that would be harboring Jewish people. Okay, now, if you're going to speak the truth, and you could endanger those Jewish people endanger their lives, if you remain silent, and you're not speaking a lie, but the Nazi agents would understand that there are people on the street that are sheltering Jewish people. But if you tell the lie, maybe it won't succeed in protecting the lives of the Jewish people. But at least you'll be making an effort having the intention to protect their lives. So this is a case where departing from the precept is if it succeeds, it will have the effect of protecting the lives of others, where if you adhere strictly to the precept, you'll be endangering the lives of others. So this is a relatively non controversial example. But one could bring in other examples which become more and more controversial, which involve a stronger departures from the precepts. Because one example I mentioned this in the last interview, but again, maybe I'll bring it in now. So this is a stronger example. And that is the case of a police policeman. Okay, he's here as he receives a report from headquarters, that a shooting is taking place at the nearby school. And this is something that you know, happens to set very sadly, just too often here in the United States, some angry student or angry person comes into the school yard with a gun and start shooting the students. So the police comes onto the scene. The shooter is at a distance he can't aim to shoot for the hand or for the foot. He's going to have to shoot directly at the body of the of the gunman. likely take his life there's almost no alternative. And of course, we might not expect to Buddha's to be in that situation, but we're looking at this from the standpoint of what could have moral evaluation. Would a conscientious Buddhists make of a situation like that? What kind of judgment would he make about the police who shoots the gunman in order to protect the lives of the children? Okay, so with the second moral code, one is, as I said, trying to adhere as closely as possible to the ideal standard of ethical conduct that accords with the Buddha's teaching. But one has to recognize that again, that there are these conflicting situations, and sometimes to protect, to secure the maximum good to at least to protect the lives and well being of others. Sometimes strict adherence to the first code, the code taught within the Dharma doesn't work successfully. Does that make sense?
Host 15:59
Yeah, it does. And it gives a lot to think about in terms of how things break down in real world situations and real world, me and my right now. And in trying to think through it more, I find what's on my mind, are some of the words that you wrote me after our first interview, and I want to read those back to you. And to ask how you would reconcile these words and these reflections with what you're saying now. And maybe there's a connection that I'm not quite aware of, or seeing now, or maybe you've moved on from one thinking to another, both of which are fine, just to clarify and understand better. So, after the interview, the first round of interview that we had, during that interview, you had made a statement that there are conditions where I would say that killing is almost unavoidable. And you cited the example of the policeman with the children. And then you send me a message some weeks later saying, I would say that I have reviewed my position more carefully. And think that in opposing tyrannical government, even one that openly murders its own citizens, only nonviolent resistance has a chance to work, but it has to be carefully planned and executed and quote, so I'm wondering where you stand with that thought now, and in relation to your recent reflections about these differing moral codes.
Bhikkhu Bodhi 17:30
I can't really speak in any kind of detail about the situation in Myanmar, which I don't know the situation in detail in detail now. But in the period after our first interview, I discussed the interview with a friend of mine, her name is Professor Sally King. She's written quite extensively on engaged Buddhism. She's now retired from her academic career. And she had recommended to me a small book by a theorist of nonviolent action called gene shock. And the book is called from dictatorship to democracy, a conceptual framework for liberation. It was actually originally written in relation to the uprising in Myanmar in 1988. Against the previous dictatorial regime, I think this was the slaw, or perhaps it was a regime of knave when, and he recommended, and he was writing in general terms, so he wrote it against the background of the Burmese uprising, but he was writing in general terms. And he wrote strongly advocating nonviolent resistance as being the most the approach with the greatest chance of success. And the reason why he says this is because when one engages in violent resistance to a regime, in taking, either in the form of guerrilla warfare or in the form of assassinations, it sort of plays into the strength of the autocratic regime, their strength lies in using military force to suppress the population. And so when you attack them with it by military means, then it provides them with an internal justification for launching the full force of their own, you know, military forces against the rebels, the rebels and the way he presents it that, you know, strengthens the hand of the regime and gives them you know, greater sort of licence to continue with their oppressive and, and murderous methods against the rebel groups with it against the resistance within the population, and so he advocates using well planned, well designed very systematic methods of nonviolent resistance. He says this conclusion is a hard one. But when when wants to bring down to dictatorship most effectively, and with the least human cost, then there are four immediate tasks. First, one must strengthen the oppressed population themselves, in their determination, self confidence, and resistance skills. Second, one must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people. Third, one must create a powerful internal resistance force. And fourth, when must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation, and implement it skillfully. And then he says against the strong Self Reliance force, given wise strategy to discipline then courageous action and genuine strength, the dictatorship will eventually crumble if the above four requirements are fulfilled. Yeah, so I'd read this book, after our previous discussion. And this made me think that nonviolent resistance is likely to be the more effective than violent resistance.
Host 21:49
So some people have called attention to the possibility of non violent activism, as you say, being dependent on the type of government in question. For example, Gandhi protesting the British Martin Luther King protests in the US, they were both able to appeal to the humanity of their aggressor, even though the systems they were in were quite unjust. Those systems in some way, espoused another kind of life that they were able to draw upon to show their injustice and to put the mirror back. When faced with faux like the Nazis who you recently referenced the Japanese Imperial Army, North Korea or the tama da today, there's a justified concern that the brutality can't be swayed by any degree of nonviolent movement. And that those that are staging non violence in any way, they'll simply be mowed down because there's no shared humanity to even call upon, given the the systems they're trying to put in place. What are your thoughts on that?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 22:56
Yeah, well, I think, in the strategies and the methods that are proposed by Jean sharp in this book, he's not definitely he's not trying to. He's not arguing that by using these methods of nonviolent resistance, you're appealing to the humanity of the autocrats and that they're going to be somehow moved emotionally move morally moved, and give up their hold on power, and welcome the resistance into the to replace them. But his basic argument is that it's by skillfully designed and implemented strategies of nonviolent resistance, that you wear away the autocratic regime, that you find the chinks and holes in their grip on power, and that way you gradually cause them to weaken and to crumble down. And like for him the sort of ultimate outcome of a successful nonviolent resistance is not that the autocrats, the dictators and the resistance, hug and kiss, and sit down and enjoy a cup of coffee together. But rather he puts it the way he puts it, the ultimate outcome should be that the autocrats you help the autocrats to get onto the airport and to get to the airport and get on planes and leave the country. Right. Yeah. So how things are working in Myanmar, I just don't know. I mean, occasionally, I look at the Myanmar now website, the red dot, the dot, the website, Irrawaddy Irrawaddy Irrawaddy website, and it just seems that these skirmishes such as going on and on. On this day, the resistance has managed to kill so many government soldiers. Another day the government soldiers have launched attack on this pocket of resistance. And it just seems to be going on like this. without any clearer and, and game insight, I don't know what's going to happen.
Host 25:05
Yeah, and if I can just take a moment to bring in that Myanmar view and the voices of people that I've been speaking to, on and off the podcast, to bring in their reality and their their goals and plans and how they're operating. One of the things that always sits, in my mind is the conversation with a lifetime lifetime peace activist who became a leader in the armed resistance. This was a podcast called The History of Violence for those that want to go back and hear it and one of the tragic things and speaking to him, that was very educational for me. At one point, he said, if there's something nonviolent left to do that we haven't tried, please tell us what it is, let us know if there's a good idea that we haven't put into play. Let's do it. Now. We've tried everything that we can think of. And when you look at some of the nonviolent strategies before, you know, they they will, for one, the first moment of the coup, the the entire opposition party that was voted into power were arrested in mass, so their voices and their power was completely taken away. That followed by targeting doctors going trying to entrap doctors with fake calls, shooting them on the streets, to the point that doctors couldn't even wear scrubs or anything identifying them anymore in public because they were subject to, to that kind of treatment to journalists, those that engaged on you can just have to back up a moment, even those that have a camera on their back could be thrown in jail immediately just for that offense. CCDM, the civil disobedience movement, those that's one of the most the greatest non violent aims that we've seen so far that government workers, civil servants just simply refuse to go to office. Well, they're, they're sought out, they're in deep hiding, they're arrested, they're tortured, they're killed, if they can't find the person on CDM, they find a family member there have been cases of, of children as young as seven years old and elderly up in their 80s, who've been arrested because their family member has been on CDM. So that hasn't worked. There were massive nonviolent strikes on the street for four months for not four months, four weeks. And those had to end because they were shooting people in the head. They were beating people to death in broad daylight. So they couldn't do that anymore. They they have arrested and killed monks and nuns, bystanders who are walking down the street, are subject to the same treatment, people who are sitting in their homes not doing anything, have been killed by stray bullets that are that are not the result of firefights, but that are soldiers actually shooting intentionally bullets into homes for no reason than to just terrorize. And even cases of people who have been in their homes and the police have stormed in for no reason at all again, just to just to terrorize. So, with this backdrop, and talking to this guest I had a few months ago, it really imprinted on my mind this sense of do you think we want this? Do you think this is something we want to do? Who would want to give up the ideals we live by and risk our lives to break the most cardinal sin in any religion? And And yet, this is what we have to do. And I think there's been a, a real frustration among many Burmese people that they are there in this vise grip of the of the west on one hand, saying there's nothing we can do we just issue statements, and we just wish things that could be better. And were kind of hands off. But then the minute that, that there becomes a right to protect or a self defense or even something beyond that. The West, many actors in the West which have been very silent and in terms of anything that could be called support, are now quite active and telling them well, you mustn't do anything to to further upset the situation you mustn't do anything to aggravate the tatmadaw and which to them just becomes intolerable, and which makes them feel like they truly are alone, and that there truly is no care or support of any kind. Because they're not when their human rights are being violated in such egregious ways. There's nothing and then when they when they start to take those actions to defend themselves to greater measure. They're then given the blame for escalating the situation, which was being escalated just quite fine before anyone did anything. I know of a devout Buddhist practitioner who has been staunchly nonviolent in the beginning at least. And when some of the armed resistance started he said to me, you know, it's really funny. I feel I've I've we've been subjected to military raids almost every day and we've barely been able to sleep he had to crawl across his living room every day because bullets were coming in. It was that bad and he said that Once the armed resistance started something which he was staunchly against, he said, You know, I, I actually feel safe for the first time in a while because these soldiers that have been harassing us are now too occupied to be able to just bully us. He wasn't saying this as a statement of support for the armed resistance, he was saying this as kind of a a confidential confessional, which had a bit of confusion in it. I don't know what to make of this. But this is actually the situation to end this commentary and background. One Buddhist practitioner who listened to your previous podcast, your previous interview in which you had suggested monks marching in downtown, sitting in front of City Hall with a three finger salute. A very nice idea, I should add, his response was yes. And then the soldiers will come out and shoot them all in the head one by one. I don't say this to call you out. Because as we've established in the beginning, there are no easy answers. And this suggestion you have is really quite beautiful. And it was mirrored my own thoughts in the coming days. What if monks, just all meditators all just sat in the street meditating? What would they do then? So it's not to it's it's not to find weaknesses in your argument or ways or point out ways you might be misinformed or not know some of the nuanced details. It's none of that. It's simply to, to take very good ideas that you have said at the beginning of this conversation and fill in those good ideas, to listeners who are probably also not very aware, listening in the west of the true terror of the situation, and the months and months of attempts of everyone to want to avoid this. And, and that has not been seen, you know, I will never forget a phone call from a devout Buddhist practitioner, Burmese Buddhist practitioner, who has never drank and intoxicant has never has never harmed an insect knowingly, is quite careful and all that he does. And in a society where one does not even show subtle emotions, he cried, for 30 minutes, nonstop. I mean, getting emotional, just thinking about this, he just unleashed and cried and yelled almost on the phone saying, I don't want to harm anyone. I don't want to harm anyone. I don't hate anyone. But he was a non violent protest leader. He was marked his family was in danger he was his life would be over if he was found. He was adhering strictly to non violence for months. And he was now in a position where he had nowhere left to go. And the only he had a baby on the way his wife had just become pregnant a month before the coup. And he was having to contemplate willingly breaking the precepts. He had lived his whole life by in order to for survival of himself and of His people. And, and I think that, that listeners have to know these stories, to understand where the situation now lies. And so I in one sense, I apologize for dropping all this at your feet. This is an ugly reality to to some, some well crafted principles. And I guess my question is where, where do these come together? And I feel even uncomfortable asking you because this is a lot to think about on the spot, and there's probably not good answers to it. But do you have thoughts of where this there's a very ugly reality of people trying so hard in the right way, confronted with, with principles that we would all like to follow?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 33:45
I wish I had an easy answer to this. But what I would say in a situation like this, is that the people in charge of the resistance, are those involved with the resistance would have to consider is there a real allistic possibility that by engaging in violent resistance to the cut Medora Is that what it's called the military regime, that there is some possibility that we might depose them from power and then regain control of the country and establish a democratic regime? Okay, if there is a realistic chance of that taking place, then I would say that there is a strong ground a strong rationale for violent resistance. And when does so as a Buddhist, I would say with the intention, it's because we have to remember for Buddhism, the important factor is the intention or the state of mind. That my No Poo Banga ma dama, that Damas have mind as their foreigner as their leader. And so when I was doing this Not out of hatred, not with violent intent. But when is doing this in order to protect the country, and to ensure that we can depose these autocrats, these dictators, with all of their destructive policies that are harming so many people in the country. And so we're doing this for the sake of establishing a regime of, of peace of democracy, and hopefully a multi ethnic, multi religious democracy and Myanmar. And so when it's doing this with a good intention, with a noble ideal, and sometimes you could say that the means have to be in conformity with the ideal with the end. But sometimes it doesn't really work like that, as an example, again, in the example of the allied countries fighting against the Nazis during World War Two. And so when as to consider is there a realistic possibility of overthrowing the regime? And, again, returning to it to a true democracy, not the kind of half democracy half military regime that was in power before the, the the coup last February? And then the other consideration is, is there a possibility that in launching campaigns of violent resistance, that the regime is going to crackdown more harshly, more violently more destructively and be rounding up more innocent people and executing them says the long term consequences are going to be on the negative side rather than the positive side? So those are the two considerations that have to be weighed against against each other. We which one which one will prevail that I don't know.
Host 36:54
Hmm. And in looking at these moral codes that you talked about earlier in the conversation, and then, in remembering my observation a bit ago about how maybe these things just don't intersect, maybe it is a reality, where as it certainly was, for my friend that I just referenced that he had a stark choice between violating Buddhist codes, or staying alive there, there was no middle ground there for him. With all of those things in the background and in mind, I wonder about a question many have asked, looking at the play of karma and the in though in many of the Buddhists that are involved in this, is there a situation can there be a situation where one accepts on some level, the need to break certain precepts does so with an honest acceptance that I'm breaking this precept My eyes are wide open, I'm going to face consequences for this that are beyond there's no God that I can pray to, or nothing I can do to absolve this I, I, I am putting my hand on fire and the fire is going to burn, I understand. These are the conditions that I'm living in. And I have to accept this. But I'm doing this willingly. And I know I have to do it. And I'm not going to try to cultivate greater negative states of mind or victimization or other things. I just understand what needs to be done. I'm going to do it and I accept the karma that has to become as a result. What do you think of that kind of mindset?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 38:29
I think that's very much in accord with what I was just saying that the mind and the intention or the dominant factors in generating karma. And so if one engages in violence and in killing, of course, what is with those states of mind that are responsible for the violent action, what is generating negative karma, unwholesome karma, but surrounding those actions, there is a quality of noble intention or benevolent intention, the intention of providing for the safety, security and well being of the people in the country, the intention of removing sources of harm, of murder, of illegitimate claims to to domination. And so those intentions to promote the well being, safety, harmony and peace of the country. Those intentions will, from the karmic point of view, we'll be creating wholesome karma and just looked at from a non karmic ethical point of view, I would say that they can be appealed to as justification for actions that involve transgression of the precepts, particularly when when, when in transgressing the precepts when knows that when is doing so what it's doing. So reluctantly, one is doing so with a recognition that there is a law of karma that governs one's actions, but one is facing these No one is willing to face the consequences of that karma. But with the recognition that this is the almost the necessary costs to take in this very imperfect world in which we're living, in which we sometimes have to make very, very difficult choices. And then there was a point that I just wanted to add to this. Yeah, this goes back to, I think, was the year 2014. That this Buddhist magazine that was being published in the US called the inquiring mind, which has since gone out of print, they were having an issue on war and peace, and they asked me to write an essay for that, for that issue. And I wrote in writing my essay, I reflected on the situation. I reflected on the question whether there are situations which ever which can ever justify war. And then I argue that there are such situations, and the situation is when a neighboring country or nowadays it doesn't have to be neighboring, but some country is launching hostile, aggressive action towards one's own country or towards other countries. And all attempts at negotiations, peaceful discussions, compromises have all failed. And that aggressive country continues to launch its its hostile aggressive action, against the paradigm case are the Nazis and Japanese in World War Two. And then I argue that they're in such cases that there can be a morally justifiable argument in support of war. Okay, when that essay was published, and one very prominent Buddhist teacher criticized me, and said that I was sort of turning away from the wisdom and compassion of the Buddha, and taking refuge in my own subjective opinions. And I wrote a personal reply to him. And then I said, I pointed out that what's rather interesting and puzzling. In the suitors, we never come across a single sutta in which somebody presents the Buddha with a require presents the Buddha with a morally conflicted dilemma, some case where moral principles are in conflict with with each other, and where it might be necessary to violate one of the the precepts in order, for example, to provide them to prevent a massacre or even a genocide. And I don't know how to explain this gap in the text. But what I would say is that this throws us back upon our own powers of reflection. And in that case, we have to be guided by what I call the general maxim of reducing to the greatest extent possible, harm and suffering to others. There's lots of think
Host 43:09
on in those words, a number of points that you touched upon. And I want to go back to something you said a few minutes ago in there, you were referencing the the different types of responses and the, the balance, you can call it the balance karma sheet of the the action that one is committing, that will violate karma, and yet, that action in which you'll have consequences is actually keeping other people safe. And so doing it with that in mind, which is very tricky business. And I want to ask a question, that gets a bit trickier. I'll first ask the question, which was submitted to be by a listener, and then I'd like to add some commentary on it. The question that they asked as, in the previous podcast, there was a discussion of the necessity of the act in certain conditions, as the ethnic armed organizations in Myanmar are fighting against the military junta, will this not strengthen the image of these ethnicities being violent in people's minds?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 44:12
Maybe I'll have to pass over this one, I would have to sort of reflect on that over time. Because one doesn't want to, say condemn those who are sort of benefiting from the risky actions of others when doesn't want to condemn them as being cowards or collaborators with a regime. But at the same time, you can say that certainly they're not exhibiting the kind of courageous courage and self sacrifice, that those who are actively engaged in resistance or exhibiting, within maybe they have a larger family to support whereas those who could engage in the activities And the resistance might be single, might be younger and stronger.
Host 45:12
And I think it also gets into an area, not just of what you're actually doing, but the mental component in it. And this is such an interesting concept for me, because the situation in Myanmar has made me aware of certain privilege I enjoy in the West that I've never been aware of before, just the privilege that if something, if there is some intruder that's threatening my safety, your property in my neighborhood, I don't have to have blood on my hands in determining how I handle it. I can call in professionals, police that my tax goes towards funding. And of course, this is a whole other issue in America of this not to say this is a not a situation fraught with its own immense challenges and problems. But in many places, at least in where I live, and we're where many people live in America, certainly not all, you can respond to a threat by calling in professionals of that society without having that blood on your hands. And in Myanmar, that is upside down the social contract is flipped on its head. If there is something some issue to deal with some security threat you the where it falls on you as naked and exposed. And it's it's your decision making is out there for you. It's not something that I can refer to some authority to take care of on my behalf. And so I think that's, that's also something that's been of interest and been relevant to look at in this situation in Myanmar is how if I were in this my neighborhood, and someone was trying to cause me harm, and I call the authorities and they had to subdue that person by physically harming him by injuring him previously, even by through lethal means any one of those circumstances, I would be very disturbed and very upset that this happened. But I would not feel any complicitous I would not feel I had blood on my hands, I would feel it's very unfortunate, and yet in in how we evaluate what's happening in Myanmar, because the gloves are all off. It just looks a different way. But actually, it's coming from the same place. Alright, so the next question I have involves another topic that we spoke about offline that we decided would be a value to talk about during this interview as well. There is a Western monk living in Myanmar, who wrote a long essay about the overturn overturned ALMS bowl. Yeah, he. This is a symbol in Buddhism where the monk refuses to accept a donation from a lay person which is ultimately depriving them of making merit by offering to monastic and has been compared to excommunication and Christianity. And this has been a powerful symbol used in recent history in Myanmar to show a spiritual disapproval of on the part of the monastics of how the generals have been leading the country. And I'm going to read a brief selection of this post because it's quite long, and I can post a reference to those who want to see the post in full and would like to hear your thoughts in this topic of the role of the appropriateness of the overturned ALMS bowl. Yeah. The mungkin question wrote, We have seen many Facebook selfies of politically active monks with their, with their bowl turned upside down. What you see on the news with monks and nuns as protesters is not proper, overturning a bowl as an official Buddhist act. But what you have seen on Facebook and on the news are not official acts of overturning a bowl. These monks or nuns are doing this purely to be political. The Buddha has specifically mentioned that talk of Kings should not be engaged in what more could be said about participating in political protests. He then goes on to give a reference a talk that actually he cites you as the translation on pointless talk. He writes, doing public actions against political leaders will only cause further retribution towards the Sangha, and has been proven so in the past. Furthermore, during the time of the Buddha documented in various suttas there were very fierce kings who had long and detailed methods on how to torture people. Governments were not fair 2600 years ago, with tolerance is the only course of action. The best and most useful methods now and back then, is to keep the Dhamma alive and teach it to the kings overturning the bowl is an official act carried out in a SEMA To officially reject offerings from a person due to extremely adverse actions or speech against the community of monks, such proclamations should not be casually done for the purpose of gaining Facebook likes support political asylum, or Pat's on the back. monks have better things to do, like meditation, study teaching and work. Therefore, it is counterproductive to parade on the streets or take selfies with overturned bowls. It is also not proper for the Buddhist rules and procedures. An overturned bowl is an is an official Vineya act. And doing such attention getting politics belittles the Buddhist rules. We don't do such transactions anymore, even to our own monks. We let people come to the Dhamma. And change that way, monastics are to teach the Dhamma if people accept the Dhamma, it is good for them. If a donor does not want to give or acts inappropriately, we skip their house quietly. This is the way. So that's a brief summary of some of the points that he made there wondering what your thoughts are on that. Yeah, that
Bhikkhu Bodhi 50:59
seems to be quite appropriate type of advice if we were living under the conditions of India, maybe northeast India in the fifth century BC, or under ideal conditions. But first, well, let me make a disclosure. I was one of the monks. I was not an originator of that idea. But I received of us have been an email from some other monk suggesting that I as well as others, show our opposition to the military into in Myanmar by taking photos of ourselves with the ALMS bowl turned upside down. So I had my photo taken and I sent it to the person who was collecting the photos. And the other monk who stays with me venerable Mengele also had his photo taken, I took his photo and sent them to the person collecting the photos. So I'm part I'm guilty of that. So called improper action. Okay, first as far as that being an official act of the Sangha, yes, the monk who wrote that is correct. The act of turning over the ALMS bowl should be decided by a consensus of monastics as a way of showing rejection of the behavior of a lay person who's creating harm the monastic community, or who's disparaging the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. And so when we did this, taking our photos and sending them to a central reception place that received them and posted them on Facebook, it was not done with the idea that we were performing an official act of the Sangha was rather just a symbolic way of showing that we were opposed to the behavior. The actions taken by these leaders of the Tatmadaw in Myanmar, a way of showing that we didn't agree with their the type of dictatorial regime that they were imposing on the country that we didn't agree with the way that they were shooting people killing people arresting people arbitrarily and sentencing them to long prison terms. And since we would assume that the people that the even the leaders in Myanmar, at least as a rough assumption, have some regard for monastics and have some acceptance of the idea of gaining merit, by making arms offerings to the Sangha. The idea was that by turning the bowl upside down, we are showing that we are denying them at least symbolically, the opportunity to make offerings and to acquire merit through your through gifts to the Sangha. But it was not in any way, intended as an official act of this of the Sangha, but just as symbolic, a way to send a symbolic message to the people at the head of the regime, that we are opposed to their types of policies and to their grip on power. As far as the idea of I think he said that monks did this in order to receive Pat's on the back is that the expression that he use Facebook likes and live in the back Facebook and Pat's on the back? I mean, I hardly even look at Facebook. So I don't think I did that for the purpose of likes. And Pat's on the back and I don't think the other people who did that had such a motive in mind. It seems a little bit silly to make a comment like that. Yeah, I know at least a few of the other monastics who sent in their their pictures to be put up on Facebook and I don't think that they really need likes and Pat's on the back Okay, as far as the idea of monks becoming politically active, I've said that I've even written about this that I don't think it's proper for monastics to. I'm thinking of the situation in this country, the United States for monastics to campaign for candidates to endorse candidates to run for political office themselves. But I think, in our current situation, people look to religious leaders to clergy, in Christianity, they look to priests and ministers. And in Jewish religion, they look to rabbis to be something of a moral voice, to be a way to be the channels for expressing for expressing a conscientious point of view that accords with and is grounded in the religion that they follow. And it seems to me that this is becomes a responsibility of monastics and our present age, that I sometimes say that politics is the platform on which major moral contests are being waged in our time in this country, as well, the question, for example, whether people are going to get health care whether there'll be a universal system of health care so that people won't have to be rejected by hospitals and by doctors, because they're not able to cover the health care that they need. Whether we're going to take action to address climate change, to prevent the entire devastation of the geophysical system of this planet, whether we're going to put an end to no police brutality. So these are moral issues, very critical moral issues, and I think it becomes part of the responsibility, maybe not of every monastic, certainly not of every monastic, but a certain monastics who are knowledgeable about these issues, who have a deep foundation or grounding in the Dharma, and who are willing to step out into the open and speak and to advocate a more what I would call a moral perspective on these political issues, not for the purpose of promoting the power of one group as against other groups. But to condemn that which has to be condemned because it violates basic and fundamental principles of ethics, to condemn, and to criticize policies that are inflicting immense harm and suffering on ordinary people, and to stand up for alternative policies, which have the potential to promote the well being and happiness of people. So I would say that this is definitely a responsibility of certain leaders within the monastic order. And so when monastics to come forward and speak up and address issues like that, again, not from the standpoint of, you know, promoting certain power interests, but for advocating a morally grounded morally grounded policies and programs, that I would say, is an urgent need within the Buddhist Mr. Time.
Host 58:23
And concerning the technical arguments that he makes that according to his understanding, of the role of doing this, that this is technically inappropriate, with the way that this has been described in scriptures that he's referencing, what is your take on that?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 58:45
Well, you see, as an act of of the Sangha, it's only realistic when the act is performed by by monks who are living within a close geographical range of the of the of the offending party. Since the point behind the act of turning the bowl upside down, is that you refuse to accept the offerings of these people. The lay people who are targeted by the Act. And so when we're living scattered around the world, whether in the United States, Europe or Australia, we turn our bowls upside down, you know, there's no possibility that we could actually be truly rejecting the offerings of the military leaders in Myanmar, since they're on, you know, 1000s of miles away. Right. So you were driving?
Host 59:40
Yeah, that that's part of it. That's part of the question the other that's the part of those who are living outside the country. The second part of the question would be examining those that are inside the country. Do you think according to your understanding of India, the monastic code to which you are one of the greatest living experts of Standing this, the the the details of this monastic code that monks are expected to live by? Is it your understanding that Burmese monks in country would have a right to turn their ALMS bowl upside down and reject the arms that would be given by the military as a way to make a moralistic and ethical stand against what those leaders are doing? Is that appropriate?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:00:30
I would say so, I would say so even though the venue mentioned certain conditions on the wish that turning of the bowl upside down can be can be enacted. Again, basically, it's not so fresh in my mind, but it's that the lay person abuses, monks, reviles, monks, makes an effort to drive the monks away from the living quarters, and several other grounds and then speaks this praise of the Buddha, this praise of the Dharma, just praise of the Sangha. Yeah, so what the actions of the military gender don't quite fit into that schema. But we could say that these military leaders will actually in some cases that they are harassing and imprisoning and even beating and torturing monks. So that itself would provide an adequate canonically grounded reason for making that decision to turn the bowls upside down. But even if they weren't attacking amongst themselves, but the fact that they're acting in ways that are inflicting harm on the country, in ways that violate the ethical principles of the Dharma, I would say that that would provide that could be brought in as an additional ground for deciding to adopt that action of turning the bowl upside down. And I believe that my memory is accurate enough. That could have been during the time of the slaughter, or the time of 2007. When the marches through the streets of Rangoon were taking place that amongst did enact at least some groups of monks did enact that process of turning the bowl upside down as a way of protesting against the the actions of the military leaders of that time.
1:02:47
What am I gonna do we are done. And the reason is, I don't know we got busier and busier yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada, yada. No, no.
Host 1:03:02
Looking at Nazi Germany, specifically, I know that you were engaged in a vigorous debate about this several years ago, you have a comment on if you think a non violent response could have worked in Nazi Germany?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:03:15
No, in the case of Nazi Germany, certainly does nonviolent response would not have worked. I mean, there would have been no possibility of a not, first of all, the German people as a whole were completely won over by Hitler. And were enthusiastic about supporting his military campaign to conquer the entirety of Europe and perhaps even extending the campaign to other parts of the world. So it wasn't a case of, of there being a prospect for an internal resistance against Hitler, except maybe from small pockets of people, who in fact, did try to there was a pocket of conspirators who did try to assassinate Hitler, including the German theologian. Oh, his name, very famous, important German theologian of the 1930s who was strongly committed to non violence, but he was became convinced that the only way to eliminate Hitler was through assassination. And though he wasn't enrolled in the position of being an assassin, he called collaborated with the movement that was there was planning to assassinate Hitler was that Bonhoeffer? But Bonhoeffer? That's right, that's correct.
Host 1:04:41
I think that's an interesting parallel of an ethical, moral, religious man in the terrible situation. It's certainly similar to where we find ourselves now. And that's where this next question takes us. It's looking at the difference between what we're learning from The Buddhist scriptures and lived reality. And I think it's an interesting topic because, as you so clearly stated in the last talk, you were not interested in absolutism in terms of doctrine, but rather shaping it to be relevant to the practical reality. And in Buddhist scripture, we have stories that illustrate the enormous sacrifices that people took in order to stay on the noble path. And one of those stories that comes to mind, I might get the details of this slightly wrong is the Bodhisattva. The Buddha and a former life seen tiger cubs that are starving to death below a ledge and he propels his body down to the ledge to break his bones die and be eaten so they can live. So the question comes, we have this story, how much of this should be regarded as a kind of spiritual allegory, and how much of it is actual practical spiritual guidance. Some practitioners and other countries have insisted so heavily on the absolutism that wants to follow. And their understanding of the non violent doctrine inherent in these stories is that they've basically insisted you need to you as the Burmese people need to allow for rape, abduction, torture, even death. simply accepting that as one's karma if that if there's nothing else you could do beyond the pale of non violence, and this is what you have to accept. And the stories like this from the scriptures could be read to support that view. The question then falls on us how literally are we to take these references, especially in times like this, should the Burmese protesters, like the Bodhisattva also willingly lay down sacrifices, their sacrifice their bodies, their lives for the tatmadaw, to eat up, while holding on to these supreme parties and ethical, ethical values?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:06:48
That particular story about the Bodhisattva sacrificing his his life to feed the hungry tigers? First, it's not from the Pali Jotika collection, but it's from a North northern Buddhist article collection. And it's 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 Donna paramita the perfection of giving. So it's not intended to be in any way an injunction for those who are subjected to oppression, persecution, at the hands of the hands of a Thai radical government to passively submit to their fate without resistance. There is another Jotika story, but Jotika type story from a this is from a Mahayana sutra called the rupiah cow Shalya sutra, the sutra on skillful means, which relates in account of how a bodhisattva that is the future of Buddha. Gautama was a passenger, perhaps the captain of a ship that was transporting a group of some 500 merchants from a jewel Island back to the mainland. And on the ship, there was a another passenger who was in 10th, let me see if I can get this right, who was intending to murder the 500 jewel merchants, and still their jewels. Were in the Bodhisattva. The ship captain had the psychic power of being able to read the minds of others and he could read the mind of the potential murderer and realize what he was intending to do. And he realized that there was only one way to stop the murderer from killing the 500 merchants in that was for he himself to kill the murderer. And so that's what he did, being willing to take on the consequences of a rebirth and the lower realm through the karmic maturation of that deed. But it turned out that by killing the murderer, and saving the lives of the 500 merchants, he generated enough merit to earn a rebirth in the heavenly realm and to continue along because Bodhisattva practice of the paramitas
Host 1:09:44
Wow, that's a stunning story to think about in the current circumstances and the meaning it has for those today. Myanmar.
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:09:52
Yeah, I haven't reviewed the text recently. So I'm not sure that I have it correct and all details but the basic point This at the Bodhisattva took a life in order to save the lives of some 500 people. And I think what it shows what what it indicates to me is that later generations of Buddhists think is grappled with some of these difficult ethical issues that I have to say Tera Vaada ones don't consciously address and try to resolve very clearly, but tend to fall back a bit sorry to say this upon the kind of textual fundamentalism, turning what I take to be the ethical guidelines of the canonical texts into ethical absolutes, which have to be maintained under all circumstances, even when the consequences are going to be on the large scale, disastrous for many people,
Host 1:11:02
there's a question that comes that's examining the critical difference between non violent and being passive. non violence might be characterized as an organized strategy of resistance to injustice, or in other terms, is right action. being passive may be characterized as a lack of resistance to injustice. There are meditation organizations and Buddhist traditions who advise their members to avoid politics. And specifically in these times, to avoid by any means taking any kind of stance or actions on the current situation in Myanmar, based on this view of avoiding what they call politics. The only direction that the leaders of some of these meditation organizations have given to their members is some meta, while any meta is better than no matter at all, in the spectrum of actions, sending that to me lands on the side of being passive. Do you agree or disagree and why sending metta to those people suffering from state sanctioned violence, and to those perpetuating the violence is an example of being passive.
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:12:10
First, I don't think if one is sending meta, that one is just being passive, in the sense of being indifferent. And this might come into a bit of a philosophical understanding. But I think that there's a fairy at a very deep level, that the minds of human beings and maybe even of all sentient beings, have a very deep, hidden interconnections. So that when you send metta to a group of people who are in trouble, at this level, where the mind are interconnected, your mind stream might be impacting their mind streams, and might be having some kind of invisible and tangible, intangible indiscernible impact. Which, if there are enough people joining in this process, it might have a transformative impact. So I don't want to discount and just dismiss the practice of sending better. But also, too often, people fall back on the idea of sending metta as a way of avoiding making other commitments to transformative action. And so what I would say is that certainly once it's send metta, and tried to send it quite strongly to those who are afflicted, but also find other ways of taking action. And in regards to the particular situation in Myanmar right now, I just don't really know what kind of courses of action can be taken, perhaps encouraging one's own government, if you're in the US or another western country, not to provide any kind of monetary assistance to the to the to the, to the hunter, not to wreck to recognize the diplomats sent by the by the military enter, but to continue to recognize the diplomats who had formerly been sent by the by the previous government, the government that had been deposed by the hunter. When can write to ones if you understand the United States to one's Congress person or to one senate is expressing one's displeasure with the military junta and urging them to do to impose embargoes on any kind of military assistance to the to the government in Myanmar. So there would be various channels for taking, taking, taking concrete action in opposition to the junta
Host 1:15:02
Yeah, so deed and that's definitely something to stress to listeners the value. If you're living in a country with where you're able to appeal to your governments, the value of that I was hearing interview just the other day about various pockets of Burmese communities in random places in the United States who have just put enormous pressure on their local representatives and senators. And suddenly they realize their constituents are concerned about this issue, and they're starting to advocate on behalf of what they're hearing. So being able to talk to your local representatives is definitely something being able to encourage media coverage to give donations there's there's so much that can be done in addition to the value of sending mentor
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:15:45
you know, there might be also organizations within one's own country as both Burmese expatriates as well as other people who are sympathetic to the cause of the people of Myanmar organizations which are dedicated to supporting the resistance movement in Myanmar. And so when can link up to those organizations and provide them with support in whatever capacity one can.
Host 1:16:15
So this is examining metta and the next question examines gratitude. Some traditions speak specifically about the need to develop gratitude. And specifically as it relates to me and Mar, there are many Yogi's around the world to practice in traditions or with techniques that originated directly or indirectly in Myanmar that were maintained there or innovative there throughout the centuries. So, do you feel that Yogi's should be setting an intention to develop the quality of gratitude generally and especially towards Myanmar because of this? And if so, how do you feel is this best split? For example, is there a qualitative difference between the internal personal development of quality like gratitude and the outward relational expression of this gratitude?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:17:10
I think what do you say about gratitude corresponds very closely to what I said in my response to the question about metta. So, just as one, one can develop an internal attitude of gratitude towards Myanmar and towards the particular meditation masters of Myanmar, who had transmitted the methods of practice that have come down to us in the present day. And so it would be a wholesome quality within oneself to to, to develop that kind of gratitude, and also maybe to extend thoughts of gratitude towards the people of Myanmar. But again, that might be just if one feels satisfied, simply sending gratitude but 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.
Host 1:18:31
The next question comes from a Burmese Buddhist in the country who has been following your teachings for many, many years. He was so delighted with the interview that was given that he he and his team translated it it's been I've been informed it's been listened to in English and the translated version across different monasteries, in Myanmar, as well as in Burmese monasteries and other countries. And he was also very delighted to know that we'd be having this conversation, I wanted to submit a few follow up questions specifically for his own reflection in circumstances. The first of these goes, dear Bhikkhu Bodhi, you mentioned collective karma in your previous interview, I as a Burmese Buddhist practitioner has only heard of individual karma. So I'd like to know more about collective karma. Does it really exist? And how does it work and so on? And how is it related to the current moment of this coup in my country?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:19:37
I don't think I would have said in the previous interview, that there is such a thing in the abstract as a collective karma. Such as a nation such that a nation or a particular ethnic group has a collective karma, apart from the in the action and serve its individual members. In my understanding, the only way in which collective karma makes sense is if a group of people, as a group, commit an action together, whether through directly participating in the action or by supporting it from a distance. But karma according to the Buddhist teaching is created is generated by the mental factor of volition or intention. So, it's only if people are generating the intention and regard to a particular action, that they will be creating karma. And if a group of people shares an intention shares a commitment to a particular course of action, in that way, they will be creating what we would call a collective karma. And perhaps in that way, they will receive a collective result. But there is no collective karma operating in the abstract, you know, pertaining to a whole country or a whole group of people. Apart from the participation of the individuals and that action through their intentional through their intention or volition. And how that relates to the situation in Myanmar today. I say this is something that extends maybe beyond my capacity for explanation, but I don't think that everything that happens to people, even that happens to them passively without their volitional consent to it is happening as the ripening of previous karma. I believe that karma is just one particular order of causation, intersecting with and operating in collaboration with various other orders of causation, and it can be that there is a order of, you know, causation taking place and political events, social events, such that people are are repressing a flick in afflicting enslaving, injuring other people. And this can be operating perhaps quite independently of the working of karma, like or Karma could be just one force exerting a kind of pressure upon the unfolding of those events. But there will be other levels of causation, which are of primary significance in causing those events. So I don't think we have to see or should necessarily see what is occurring in Myanmar today to be the result or the fruition of some karma that the Burmese people or the Myanmar people in the past, committed, and which is now bringing the fruit in the present. It can just be the results of the interplay of various political and social forces in the country.
Host 1:23:13
And the next question this practitioner would like to ask is, if monks were to work as peace negotiators in a conflict, which phase of the conflict is the best time to intervene and how can they use the Dharma and peacebuilding and conflict resolution?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:23:31
From what I understand as far as the present situation in Myanmar concerned, is concerned. From what I've heard, there doesn't seem to be very much that monks can do since the the members of the milli Millett, military junta have their own group of monks who are apparently subservient to their own ambitions, and are not willing to stand up against them. And those monks who do resist the government are sometimes beaten in prison perhaps even forcibly disrobe or perhaps even executed. That I don't know. But I would say that probably, if we take another situation, I will say that virtually at every phase, monks could play a piece, a diplomatic role, but I think probably their role would be most effective at the very beginning, by appealing to the moral conscience of the people involved within the conflict. And so I would say that, monks in that case, this is supposing that the parties to the conflict are reasonable, open to advice, and have trust in the advice coming from some people with some kind of moral or spiritual authority. In that case, I would say that the monks can emphasize the need for resolving conflicts peacefully, to promote harmony. And to stress the need that in any instance where there are conflicting interests that both parties to the conflict have to be willing to settle for some kind of compromise solution, that the party can't expect to have all of their desires fulfilled at the cost of the other party.
Host 1:25:29
That's right. And that's why I've heard some advice on this matter that if a monk wanted to be proactive, the only way to really do it is to simply leave the country to just go in exile and say what you want, knowing that every humanitarian project, every monastery, every educational program, your local community, and supporters, all of them will be at risk if you do that, but it might be worth doing. So in any case, but there is unless you go into deep deep hiding, which is much harder for a monk view, there is simply no way to or or unless you have some kind of access with high generals behind closed doors. There is simply very, very little I can do right now because you're you're just going to be taken away, beaten, put in jail, forcibly. That's row one of the third and last question of this particular practitioner wants to know, this might be too much to ask of someone who's not familiar with monastic sangha in Myanmar. But you seem to be able to relate your experience in Sri Lanka. It's painful to see the highest moral institution in Myanmar failing to speak about illegal or unconstitutional coup atrocities committed by the junta on its own people. My question to you is where his arm monastic sangha in Myanmar gotten it wrong. To delay Sangha in Myanmar fail in raising a new generation of leaders. What should we do to prevent, not to face such shameful disgraced monks in the future in the monastic sangha of Myanmar?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:27:11
Okay, I don't have first hand experience of the monastic sangha, in of the Sangha in Myanmar, but just as a conjecture first, I understand that there have been large numbers of monks and nuns as well, who have been resisting the military junta, even as far back was 2007. When the monk stage they marched through the streets of Yangon and opposition to the regime, even though many of them were then beaten, imprisoned, forcibly disrobe many had to flee the country. And I think through the years there have been monks going into maybe the border regions or even crossing over out of the country, and to have been expressing their opposition to the military regimes, various military regimes, and certainly in Gunma. Today, I know that there are large numbers of monks probably the majority, who are opposed to the regime. The problem is that I think with many of the elders in the upper echelons of the Sangha hierarchy, who are largely maybe because of their tradition, very traditional Buddhist training and background, a committed to the idea that monks should not be involved in any way and anything that has the slightest odor of politics about it. And therefore, even if it ironical regime takes over the country, the monks should just go ahead and their familiar way performing their religious services, carrying on their study their meditation, and just ignore the developments taking place in the political dimension of the of the national life. So that is one side, the sort of very narrow traditionalist way of thinking and then another side will be the well established and prestigous monks, who subsist in a kind of symbiotic relationship with a oppressive regime, whereby the the rulers of the country provide certain perks and privileges to the monks treat them very nicely, very kindly give them honors and awards and awards and support the monasteries and that way they win the favor of the monks that the monks will advocate on behalf of of the, of the autocrats who have taken over the government. I remember when I was living in Sri Lanka, this would be a mid 1990s. I think the regime that was in charge of Myanmar at that time was called Slark. The state law and order or something, I don't remember the details. Anyway, they invited my own ordination teacher, very wonderful scholarly monk, Venerable Ananda Balin, God Ananda Maitreya, to to Myanmar. And they presented some honorary titles to him, and they treated him with a great deal of reverence and respect. And then, and he was very, very simple person that he doesn't have a kind of critical, analytical mind when it comes to political and social matters. So when he came back to Sri Lanka, I met him and we were having some chat. And he was telling me about his visit to Myanmar. And he was saying that people are very critical about the government in Myanmar. And they say that these generals who are ruling the country don't have any respect for Buddhism. But he said, Well, I went to Myanmar, I found quite the opposite to be the case. They have theories, they have very, very deep devotion, very respectful towards the Sangha. Very committed to promoting the Dharma. And since he was much older than me and my teacher, I didn't want to contradict him. I just said yes, Fanta, yes. But But I knew that that was not the case. Because I would be reading articles that come out and in, in some of the Buddhist journals, which are exposing the truth about the the autocratic regime in Myanmar at that time, about the brutal way in which they were treating the population, even to the point where where they were killing many people to maintain a grip on the country.
Host 1:32:21
I think one of the underlying points of this question also is indicating the tension between a traditionalist and largely rule Sangha, and a country that is being transformed into something more modern very fast. Yeah. And the concern being expressed by this Burmese Buddhist who is very devout, and yet also living in the modern world, is that the Sangha has not been trained to be able to respond to the needs and respect the changes of that modernity. And because of that, because they're not, they're resisting it as a whole. And in resisting it in his estimation, that is why they're falling silent. That is why some of them are actually supporting the military, because they are not being trained to respond to the needs of the present moment. And so they're resisting the president.
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:33:18
I think our points are what I would call a serious shortcoming in the traditional Buddhist method of education and training. Perhaps some can argue on the other side, that that is what has maintained the continuity of the monastic tradition through some 25 centuries, preserving the same tradition, the same methods of training, not allowing the monks to step out of the boundaries of the traditional system of monastic training. But the world in which we're living today is extremely, utterly different from the world in which Buddhism flourished and earliest centuries and earlier centuries from the time of the Buddha right up to maybe the beginning of the beginning or middle of the 20th century. Well, let's say in this case of the Buddhist countries up to the 19th century, before the colonial takeover of many of those countries, the invariably the form of government was a monarchical form of government, in which one of the tasks of the Monarch was to support the monastic order and the monastic order would serve at least some of the mass of the monastics would serve as advisors and councils to the king on religious matters, and there was almost a kind of silent pact between them that the monastics would not speak up and advocate in political matters, leaving that As the particular domain of the secular authority of the kingship, but even I would say that the divide between the two was not absolute, even during the traditional period. And when time at times when the monarch would overstepped the boundaries of Buddhist morality, but do things which would be harmful to the sosna, then the monastics would Roz would oppose the king, and maybe try to give him advice on how he could correct his ways, or perhaps even throw their support behind a contender for the throne. By say that those were maybe exceptional cases, the general rules that the monastics would pursue their own traditional system of monastic education, training and practice. In the contemporary period, we've had a complete change in systems of governance, whereby now we have, presumably, at least as an ideal of the ideal of democratic models of governance, in which the government has to represent the people. And the people have the responsibility for put for putting the government into power. And the government that's elected by the people has to adopt and promote policies, at least in theory that will fulfill that will promote the well being of the population. And so in this case, I would say as part of the kind of guidance that monastics give to the people, the monastics should have an understanding of at least some principles of social organization of some principles of political, of governance, of political administration, of economics, and the kinds of economic policies that would be conducive to their well being, some understanding of ecology, the impact of governmental policies on the natural environment, the relationship between environment and human organizations, and so monastics should be able to speak up very clearly, and knowledgeably about those topics. And that would require a broadening of the system of monastic education. To take a parallel case, one might take the education and the training system through which Jesuits in the Catholic the Catholic religion undergo, the Jesuits are trained and so many aspects, so many aspects of secular society. So they become very exams and become very, very knowledgeable about politics, economics, sociology, ecology. And when we compare the kind of education and even in maybe some of the other priestly orders, maybe they don't carry that type of education to the same extent that the Jesuits undergo, but I would say the Catholic priests also get some kind of training in subjects like political science, sociology and economics, whereas the Buddhist monks know almost nothing about those subjects. So I think a contemporary system of Buddhist monastic education also has to include training in those areas, that the monks are qualified monks and nuns will be qualified to speak up on those issues. Of course, there's a danger there, the danger would be that the monks become polarized in supporting contending political forces within the country. This was a situation I encountered in Sri Lanka, where in addition to the division of the monks into the different the kayas, that is, according to their lineages of ordination, there were two main political parties in Sri Lanka at the time that I was there, the United National Party and the Sri Lankan Freedom party. So rather sadly, the monks would be divided at least some of the leading monks between those who threw their allegiance behind the United National Party, and those monks who threw their allegiance behind the Sri Lankan Freedom party. That's So that led to rather ugly debates and conflicts between the opposing political parties, between the the monastic groups that was supporting the oppose political parties. And then in later times this developed, but actually it started to develop while I was in Sri Lanka, but it fully emerged only after I was back in the United States, there emerged a rather extremist organization of Sri Lankan monks called the Buddha Bella Cena, Sunday, which means nothing like the Buddhist army, the Buddhist Buddhist force, which took an extremely sort of right wing adopted, promoted extremely right wing policies, particularly in regard to inter religious relations. advocating the idea of making Buddhists and the state religion, even though Buddhists constituted only something like 65 or 70% of the population, and advocating policies that were particularly oppressive and antagonistic towards the Muslim population of the country.
Host 1:41:27
Right and at the beginning of the of your answer, you add reference that there is this 2500 year old tradition with the Sangha needing to be traditional needing to follow these normal routines of the day. And it should be clear that that is not being questioned by anyone really, that I see, I think an example to look at is lady saying, who found himself in an extraordinary transition period, the king being deposed, and all of Burmese life at that time being centered around the king in this court, and as ministers and everything else, the British coming in was another shock. There was no longer any head of the song gods, Tata buying, which was the, the senior monk, he had passed away and the British were not looking to appoint another and because of their non interference with religious qualities, and so, Lady Cena was able to draw from this classic traditional understanding, but step into a modern dynamic role of a British Christians and, and colonialists in the country of new scientific developments. The Sangha needs to be supported by someone other than the king and the world CT. empowerment for women, and children and older people in ways and teaching meditation and study beyond just the monks. And so this was this was an example we have in the past in Bernie's history, not that long ago, relatively, of how there was able to be this blend this marriage between the traditional classical that you're not making any kind of concessions towards, and understanding that you're living in a dynamic new time. And so, when I look at this question that was asked, it also, it points to that underlying intention of how do we preserve these great traditions of our past and of, of what the Sangha should be and should continue to be, while also recognizing that we're living in a dynamic changing modern world that should not be resisted, but should be incorporated and responded to in the appropriate way.
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:43:39
Yeah, but even though lady so, Lady Syrah might have responded to the conditions that were imposed by the British imperial regime, the Imperial takeover of, of the country, still, he maintained, he remained very much within the bounds of the traditional system of interpretation of the Dhamma. But I think what is needed at the present time is for the intellectual horizons of monks or at least some group within the monastic order to be expanded to be able to understand these dynamic forces that are at play in the contemporary world. And I would say particularly, let us say what is the most critical concern would be the impact of human behavior on the environment, the environment, destruction, the spoliation, that only climate change, but even the destruction of the forests like the way the forest in Myanmar have been? I understand a lot of them clear cut in order to get timber to sell to other countries, particularly China for manufacturing, to bring an income into the country, but it's leading to, you know, the destruction of the natural environment, the wildlife is losing its traditional, its familiar habitat. And also the destruction of the forest is a contributing factor to accelerating climate change. So it'd be necessary for some monks who understand, to learn the interplay of these different forces between politics, environmental policy and the natural environment, and then to be able to speak up as a moral force and also as a human force for preserving the prospects for the continuation of human life on this planet. And these are things that the traditional system of education simply can't accommodate or doesn't take account of simply because the kinds of forces at play in the world today we're not known it during the war traditional times.
Host 1:45:53
Absolutely. And this leads right to the next question, which is the coup reminds me of another situation we all face today the accelerating destruction of the biosphere, as Buddhists were supposed to generate compassion for all, but most of us live our lives actually financing this global destruction in almost anything we buy. As with the coup, we could choose to respond to violence, destroying the destructive systems, or peacefully for example, living off grid and perhaps cultivating highly biodiverse food producing land. But if we do neither, and continue to use fossil fuels and heat from polluting agriculture, is this not against the Buddhist teachings of non violence that underpins all Buddhist ethics? If I
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:46:33
understand the question correctly, the person who's formulating the question is asking that if, say, one continues to use sources of electricity that come from fossil fuels and to eat food that has not grown, under less organic or biodiverse conditions, is one in some way guilty of violating the principle of Ahimsa, or of being an active contributor to climate change? Is that the intent of the question?
Host 1:47:03
I believe so I believe it's acquainting the destruction of the environment and being consistent in some way in that with and not responding looking at the Buddhist ethics of engagement in a similar light in terms of how we look at the response to the coop?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:47:22
I think one has to draw a certain distinctions between domains of responsibility. And so I would say that if a person uses electricity they have generally, they're not responsible for the source of their electricity. Though, I guess they can some people who are privileged enough, maybe you can put up solar panels, or find the source of solar energy flip for their electricity, but probably most people depend upon the main power grid for their electricity. And so if they use electricity that's coming from the power grid, I would not say that they are in that they're guilty of contributing to climate change. I don't want to put this in a black and white such setup a black and white dichotomy, where if you're using power that comes from the power from the power grid, and the power grid is his gets his power through the fossil fuels, that therefore you are a contributor to. You're an active contributor contributed to accelerating climate change. This is the kind of criticism that sometimes leveled against people like Bill McKibben or Al Gore, if they fly on airplanes to give lectures against climate change, therefore, they're hypocrites, because they shouldn't be flying at all if they're truly going to be supporting action against climate change. So I don't agree with that kind of argument. But I say that it's truly as part of our responsibility as Buddhists to find some way to make our voices heard in opposing the continued reliance on fossil fuels and on modes of agriculture, which contribute to increase to the acceleration of greenhouse gases into the greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere was one of the main contributors to greenhouse gases that actually the industrial model of agriculture, which contributes roughly 30%. So I think what we have to do as part of our responsibility is to advocate for governmental policies and to support political leaders who are committed to shifting our policy or our economies away from reliance on fossil fuels towards clean and renewable sources. There's of energy and supporting alternative models of agriculture, which are ecologically sustainable. But this doesn't mean that we can't obtain our own food just by purchasing food items in the supermarket, even though they might be grown in on commercial farms.
Host 1:50:31
I want to return to a question about meta This is a similar question than before, but it has slight a slightly different angle on it. So your answer might reflect that better question. The Buddha talked about the fruit of dying with a mind of hatred or fear as the last mind and in particular referred to someone dying on a battlefield or having killed someone with this mindset. It's likely that one would be born in a lower realm with much suffering. So surely, we should encourage people not to fight back out of compassion, however justified the circumstances appear to be in the moment. Hatred can never be appeased by hatred from the Dhammapada. I understand that many are unable to follow these conditions, and even a Buddha couldn't teach everyone to follow this. So I wonder if in such circumstances, if the only investing that I can do from outside the country is said metta, and share merits to the oppressed and the oppressors, and to continue to purify our own minds, so that we're in a better better position to do so. Could you please expound on this thinking?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:51:33
And certainly, it's a wholesome course of action and the situations to send metta to both the oppressor and the oppressed. But I don't think that requires a suspension of judgment. If I understand that phrase that you use in formulating, formulating the question. The other it's, in a way, it's just too easy to sort of escape from the responsibility of forming judgments by thinking that one could retreat into a position of developing metta towards both the oppressor and the oppressed, when also has to form ethical judgments, ethical evaluations, and determine in the case that you're describing that the oppressor is doing things that are wrong, and the oppressed are, you know, suffering from the wrong choices of the oppressor. And then to the extent that one has any prospect for contributing towards a peaceful resolution of this conflict between them to take action to do so. But as we, as we realized earlier, there are often situations where one can't take any effective action. And in that case, the seems that the only thing that one can resort to is the development of meta.
Host 1:53:04
There's a related question, and I do want to forewarn that this is this is one question that skirts around the issue of violence, but it doesn't address it as directly and head on as before. So you can you can consider if you feel capable of responding to it. The question is, on one hand, we have the Dhamma and the admonition against doing harm and taking of life, even in the Vineya monks are allowed to proportionately defend themselves short of taking a life in defense of their own lives. Yeah, but how do these aspirations measure up to the need of a Buddhist village to protect itself and save its daughters from the terror automatons known to wage in my view, the village headman can fight back and protect the vulnerable in his village from the sociopathy of the Tomica. Those that fight back are the owners and the heirs of their karma. And it can be said fighting back is a combination of both bright and dark karma. We should all aspire to nonviolent means even in the context of war. But this aspiration goes out the window when the when the reality of life means one must use appropriate force against evil force to protect the most vulnerable in the village. There's no bright karma and letting the tama rape and kill the most vulnerable in a village. This to me is a pusilla. It's a form of PS non action that is not sanctioned by the DOM. What is your opinion on this?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 1:54:27
Okay, since I'm a monk, I don't want to make any statement that might be interpreted as advocating or justifying the killing of another human being. But I would say that I certainly understand the difficult moral choice that a person that the people in the situation described have to deal with and Under those circumstances, they have to make the choice, whether they're going to passively endure the suffering even to death, the killing inflicted upon them the rape of their daughters or wives, or stand up, courageously recognizing that in taking action, they are going against Buddhist precepts. But seeing that the circumstances this acetate actions undertaken out of compassion for their loved ones, in a sense of responsibility for their loved ones. Yeah, maybe this is the solution to the problem, that when one enters into a particular relationship, to a relationship of marriage, or when pairs children, one has a responsibility towards one's spouse, towards one children wants children to protect their lives. And if one also if one is a member of say, of a small community, like a village, when also has a responsibility to protect the lives of the members of that village, or that community from attack by aggressive outside forces. And so in this case, I would say even though it's regrettable that one has to take forceful, violent action, even action might entail the destruction of the lives of others. But I say that, in the fulfillment of one's responsibilities, such action might become unavoidable. And again, if I could break up the situation, it seems like the always the constant example, that of the ally ally, the countries of Europe that were facing Nazi aggression during the Second World War. Even though they wanted to live peacefully without engaging in aggression, they were certainly not the aggresses. But once they were put under attack by Germany, in order, it became part of their responsibility, the responsibility of the citizens to defend the country against Nazi aggression. In that case, they had to come forth to form armies and to launch a counter a defensive war against the Nazis to protect the country. And Buddhist countries have done the same thing throughout history. When Sri Lanka was attacked by forces from South India, the Buddhist kings of those countries the Buddhist kings have three like a marshal their armies to protect the country against the South Indian invaders. And the same thing is taken throughout, as occurred throughout history with the Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia, when they faced invasion, they've had to use armies consisting of the members of the armies were certainly Buddhist, but they had to engage in the in defensive wars to protect the country. I say the same kind of logic applies to the current situation. It seems to me that the Buddhist precepts have what I would call a presumptive or using my technical term primer facie moral force, prima facie means a under under normal conditions a moral force. But there are exceptional conditions in which there are conflicting moral obligations. And in that case, one has to weigh and evaluate the conflicting moral obligations and see which moral obligation takes precedence. And in this situation, it was just described, it would seem to me that the responsibility to protect one's family members from death with the spoliation through through rape would regretfully but almost necessarily take precedence over the obligation to preserve life or to submit passively, to the violence and aggression of the attacking party.
Host 1:59:40
These are terrible things to have to think through. As you're sharing this, there's two anecdotes that come to mind that reflect the reality of the situation. One was of a doctor who had rushed onto the scene where many many had been attacked very terrible ways on the street and was just crying Emelina save as many as he could. And at the end of his, his shift and trying to save these lives was so emotionally torn and shattered what he did. He wrote a kind of poem or essay about his experience. And there was a line in there that became viral where he said, he was beginning to wonder if he could save more lives through the scalpel or through the garden. And was considering laying down his doctor's tools and picking up a weapon because he simply felt that this was such evil he was against that this was a better means of preserving life. And there's another anecdote about a monk, a Burmese Buddhist monk who saw the limitations in his vocation, and how he could serve the people and he disrobe and became an armed resistance fighter. And these these are both very painful examples of someone who's devoted his life to medicine and someone who's devoted his life to, to renunciation, and both of them choosing regretfully that they have to change their path given the current circumstances. So
Bhikkhu Bodhi 2:01:07
there's also a case in Tibet. Maybe you know about this, that I mentioned this case in the last talk. Okay, this was after the first there was a first wave in which Buddhism was established in Tibet, with Shanta rock, Sita who was like the monastic scholar, Monk and Padmasambhava, who was a master of tantric meditations. So they had established first monastery and large number of monks. And they had a benevolent king who was supporting the establishment of Buddhism in the country. But sometime later, maybe the next generation that came a king, who was persecuting Buddhism, destroying monasteries, executing monks. And then there was one monk, who realized that the only way to save Buddhism was to, to eliminate that King. I'm not sure whether he gave up his monastic vows, in order to commit the acts of active execution, who did or did so, while a monk but in a way he executed that monk, he, the monk executed the king. And in that way, the danger to the flourishing of Buddhism had been eliminated and Buddhism had a chance to continue to flourish.
Host 2:02:34
Right? Yeah, this this is really hitting it this divide again between the absolutism and the practical reality, and that's what the next question goes, someone asked. In the first interview, Bhikkhu Bodhi appeared to make a distinction between the principles of behavior upheld in the Buddhist precepts, which cannot be violated and their application in real life situations which is relative based on certain particulars. For example, the precept not to kill, which sounds absolute, when an exception of this may occur as a kind of lesser evil to save or protect threatened people, based on the relatively greater protection of life. I'm afraid I have not recorded Bhikkhu Bodhi his exact words and this may be an area in which he has since the first interview refined his own thoughts, but the underlying issue is whether the precepts are absolute or situationally relative. This is asked because for Buddhist communities based in the West, where the historical and cultural background is quite different in many respects to that of the East, religious relativism or reinterpretation or re application seems to be an almost unavoidable at the same time as it has no clear limit and may lead to what seems to be a very and Buddhist position being adopted, a kind of loose relativism can Vontae please offer some reflections on his perspective on this?
Bhikkhu Bodhi 2:04:04
Let us make a distinction between re interpreting the precepts so that they're essential meaning they're essential and tension becomes compromised and lost. A distinction between that on the one hand and on the other, preserving a proper understanding of the precepts appreciating recognizing appreciating and in principle upholding their fundamental intent. But understanding that situations circumstances can arise in which there are tensions between different moral principles. intersections have very complex situations in which different moral principles come into play, which weigh against each other which push up against each other. And then one has to examine weigh the conflicting weights of the different moral principles and determine which principle which principles should prevail under that particular situation. Or let us say, try to determine what is the overriding moral imperative under that particular situation. An imperative which might even require an abrogation or a compromise in the observance of the precept under those conditions. And again, to take an example, I always have to fall back on the examples from Nazi Germany as the extreme case, okay, we have a case where you're living in a particular neighborhood, and you see your neighbor, take in a Jewish family. And you speak to your neighbor, and you hear that he's keeping them hidden in a particular place in his attic or his basement. Okay, a few days later, the German police come down, and they're questioning the people on the street. And they know that you've never went up against the Nazi regime. And so they asked you, do you know of anyone on your block, who might be harboring a Jewish family? Okay, if you're going to speak the truth, under those conditions, it's certainly going to lead to the capture, and the imprisonment and probably the death of those Jewish people. So you have the alternative, it maybe won't be completely successful. But you say that, I don't know of anybody on the street who's doing that, of course, the police might go to the next house and find the Jewish people. But at least you are contributing your chair to protecting that Jewish family. So here, you're going against the precept of speaking the truth, but you're doing so because there's an overriding moral obligation or commitment under that situation, to protect the life of people in danger. So this it doesn't involve reinterpreting the precept or diluting the precepts of the loses its moral force. But it's understanding that there are conflicting moral situations or situations with different moral obligations in play, so that the precept might lose its force because there is an overriding obligation in this case, the obligation to preserve life.
Host 2:08:15
All right, so this brings us to the final question. And I will tell you before reading it, that it is a bit emotionally charged, as many people who are living through this are the language that's chosen. But I think it's powerful question. It has been many months since you were interviewed at insight Myanmar, about your views on the military coup in Burma, and the unrelenting tyranny and terrorism inflicted upon the people by the coup leader. And I'm like, no doubt you're fully aware as any of us outsiders can be about the suffering occurring to almost everyone inside Burma. As we speak. My question, by chance you started face to face meeting with me online? And he said yes. And asked you please, Venerable sir, you speak for Buddhists worldwide. You speak as a man of conscience and an upholder of Dhamma and freedom. What is it you wish to say to me? Please, you're safe. I was in every word. And you have my promise of safe passage home without fear of retribution. And no doubt, all major news outlets worldwide will transcribed your statements and then online verbatim, including Buddhist magazines such as tricycle lions, for mindfulness today and every other Buddhist magazine and other countries worldwide. Moreover, the Sangha and Burma will listen to you, as well the entire population in the country. Please, Venerable sir, speak your fighters truth in our mind that every noble year of your life is Bhiku on the line for this moment,
Bhikkhu Bodhi 2:09:39
if you would, okay, I think I could give my advice in three sentences. Okay. The first is to release all political prisoners and to terminate the oppression or the torture and oppression of political prisoners. The second is to step down from your position of power and allow a democratic government to pass into power. And to in third is to ensure that in the future, the ongoing future, that the military restricts its role to a to military purposes and doesn't interfere with the political administration of the country. Those would be my three sentences.
Host 2:10:42
Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you for this time here and coming back a second time to pick up on some very challenging questions. And I hope that this time around wasn't quite as tough as last,
Bhikkhu Bodhi 2:10:55
actually. Okay, thank you.
Host 2:10:59
Or maybe it was tougher. But in any case, thank you so much for your time in being able to Okay, so
Bhikkhu Bodhi 2:11:05
thank you for having me.
Host 2:11:15
Many listeners know that in addition to running these podcast episodes, we also run a nonprofit that or Burma, which carries out humanitarian projects across Myanmar. While we regularly post about current needs and proposals from groups on the ground. We also handle emergency requests, often in matters that are quite literally life or death. When those urgent requests come in, we have no time to conduct targeted fundraisers, as these funds are often needed within hours. So please consider helping us maintain this emergency fund. We want to stress that literally any amount that you give allows us to respond more flexibly and effectively when disaster strikes. If you would like to join in our mission to support those of Myanmar who are being impacted by the military coup, we welcome your contribution, any form currency or transfer method. Your donation will go to support a wide range of humanitarian missions at those local communities who need it most. Donations are directed to such causes as the Civil Disobedience movement CVM families of deceased victims, internally displaced person, IDP camps, food for impoverished communities, military defection campaigns, undercover journalists, monasteries and nunneries education initiatives, the purchasing of protective equipment and medical supplies COVID relief and much more. We also make sure that our donation Fund supports a diverse range of religious and ethnic groups across the country. We invite you to visit our website to learn more about past projects as well as upcoming needs. You can give a general donation or earmark your contribution for a specific activity or project you would like to support. Perhaps even something you heard about in this very episode. All of this humanitarian aid work is carried out by our nonprofit mission that or Burma. Any donation you give on our insight Myanmar website is directed towards this fund. Alternatively, you can also visit the better Burma website better burma.org That's BETTRBUR ma.org and donate directly there. In either case, your donation goes to the same cause both websites accept credit cards. You can also give the Pay Pal by going to paypal.me/better Burma. Additionally, we take donations through Patreon Venmo GoFundMe and Cash App. Simply search better Burma on each platform and you'll find our account. You can also visit either the Insight Myanmar better Burma websites for specific links to those respective accounts or email us at info at better burma.org. If you'd like to give it another way, please contact us. Thank you so much for your kind consideration and support.