By Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation
Published on January 26, 2011
Let me be clear from the outset that this is the "Buddhist" in me talking. Its hidden rival, who wants to speak the extreme opposite regarding Thai-Cambodian territorial tussles, is just lying in wait. Please know that, if this article makes your patriotic blood boil.
Okay, the thing is, Buddhist monks (albeit unorthodox ones) fighting for a country's claims to tracts of land have done my head in for days now. I have no problem with lay people doing it, because they aren't supposed to let go or be content with whatever is left for them, or to forgive intruders or enemies. I may be a lame Buddhist, but don't people enter the monkhood in order to steer away from whatever is motivating the Santi Asoke disciples at the moment?
My main question is: Isn't Buddhism based primarily on the idea that nothing "worldly" is permanent?
In other words, Thais and Cambodians may well be wrestling over some pieces of land that belonged to fish and shells a million years ago and could be reclaimed by the sea sooner or later, or altered beyond recognition by a mega-earthquake.
I mean, if your objective is absolute detachment, what's the point? "Sovereignty" is more "worldly" than anything in my book, or one Prince Siddhartha would not have left it all behind and we wouldn't have had Buddhism in the first place. In a "previous life" of his, we are always told, he also gave everything away - not just worldly assets and wealth, but also his children and wife.
This is not to say that we should not fight for rights over land. (Probably more on that at a later date when the patriot in me manages to summon enough sound arguments.) I'm only saying that being attached to something that we think we may own but actually may not, doesn't seem like Buddhism.
Do we own the land at the border? Maybe and maybe not. Is the "ownership", or even the land itself, permanent? No, absolutely not.
If the Santi Asoke monks have been forced away from the Thai-Cambodian border where they had lived a modest, peaceful life, this action might have been understandable. But their "fight" has largely to do with nationalism and symbolism, which are things that warriors die for, rightly or wrongly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Buddhism you don't even "own" yourself, let alone a piece of land that used to be a heavy concentration of gas and will eventually return to that state. We are taught to be aware of impermanence and to walk the middle path, aren't we?
I'm aware of "activist" monks fighting for freedom and all that, and sometimes I understand why they want to do it. Maybe it's too difficult for those in Sri Lanka or Burma to keep on the middle path.
Do the Santi Asoke monks have land to live on? Yes. Do they have food? Yes. Water to drink? Yes. Air to breath? Yes. A place to sleep and practice meditation? Yes. Does Buddhism tell them to be content with that? I think so.
Santi Asoke refuses to worship "symbols", which is good. Their religious practices and perseverance are said to be more stringent than mainstream Buddhist monks, which is partly controversial but overall comprehensible. But which part of Buddhism are they reciting to force a government to stake territorial claims and probably risk a war in the process?
Without "freedom", man cannot be. Or so we have heard. But what is freedom, anyway? The right to point to some plots of land and proclaim, "That is mine"? In a political context, yes. From a real Buddhist perspective, no.
The core of Buddhism is the quest to free oneself from suffering. But what is "suffering" in the Buddhist context, anyway? Is it the inability to lay claim to a plot of land that we don't actually need to set foot on? Or is it the pain of knowing somebody else is claiming that land instead of us? Is it both?
What can Buddhism say about the pain of knowing that your compatriots are suffering because somebody else is laying claim to that piece of land? This could be the real dilemma facing the Santi Asoke monks. How can you turn the other way when fellow human beings are suffering?
In that case, I guess any Buddhist monk will have two choices: either tell the "sufferers" that their plight is justified because the land truly belongs to them, or teach them that the suffering stems from being attached to things they don't really own.
The Nation
Published on January 26, 2011
Let me be clear from the outset that this is the "Buddhist" in me talking. Its hidden rival, who wants to speak the extreme opposite regarding Thai-Cambodian territorial tussles, is just lying in wait. Please know that, if this article makes your patriotic blood boil.
Okay, the thing is, Buddhist monks (albeit unorthodox ones) fighting for a country's claims to tracts of land have done my head in for days now. I have no problem with lay people doing it, because they aren't supposed to let go or be content with whatever is left for them, or to forgive intruders or enemies. I may be a lame Buddhist, but don't people enter the monkhood in order to steer away from whatever is motivating the Santi Asoke disciples at the moment?
My main question is: Isn't Buddhism based primarily on the idea that nothing "worldly" is permanent?
In other words, Thais and Cambodians may well be wrestling over some pieces of land that belonged to fish and shells a million years ago and could be reclaimed by the sea sooner or later, or altered beyond recognition by a mega-earthquake.
I mean, if your objective is absolute detachment, what's the point? "Sovereignty" is more "worldly" than anything in my book, or one Prince Siddhartha would not have left it all behind and we wouldn't have had Buddhism in the first place. In a "previous life" of his, we are always told, he also gave everything away - not just worldly assets and wealth, but also his children and wife.
This is not to say that we should not fight for rights over land. (Probably more on that at a later date when the patriot in me manages to summon enough sound arguments.) I'm only saying that being attached to something that we think we may own but actually may not, doesn't seem like Buddhism.
Do we own the land at the border? Maybe and maybe not. Is the "ownership", or even the land itself, permanent? No, absolutely not.
If the Santi Asoke monks have been forced away from the Thai-Cambodian border where they had lived a modest, peaceful life, this action might have been understandable. But their "fight" has largely to do with nationalism and symbolism, which are things that warriors die for, rightly or wrongly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Buddhism you don't even "own" yourself, let alone a piece of land that used to be a heavy concentration of gas and will eventually return to that state. We are taught to be aware of impermanence and to walk the middle path, aren't we?
I'm aware of "activist" monks fighting for freedom and all that, and sometimes I understand why they want to do it. Maybe it's too difficult for those in Sri Lanka or Burma to keep on the middle path.
Do the Santi Asoke monks have land to live on? Yes. Do they have food? Yes. Water to drink? Yes. Air to breath? Yes. A place to sleep and practice meditation? Yes. Does Buddhism tell them to be content with that? I think so.
Santi Asoke refuses to worship "symbols", which is good. Their religious practices and perseverance are said to be more stringent than mainstream Buddhist monks, which is partly controversial but overall comprehensible. But which part of Buddhism are they reciting to force a government to stake territorial claims and probably risk a war in the process?
Without "freedom", man cannot be. Or so we have heard. But what is freedom, anyway? The right to point to some plots of land and proclaim, "That is mine"? In a political context, yes. From a real Buddhist perspective, no.
The core of Buddhism is the quest to free oneself from suffering. But what is "suffering" in the Buddhist context, anyway? Is it the inability to lay claim to a plot of land that we don't actually need to set foot on? Or is it the pain of knowing somebody else is claiming that land instead of us? Is it both?
What can Buddhism say about the pain of knowing that your compatriots are suffering because somebody else is laying claim to that piece of land? This could be the real dilemma facing the Santi Asoke monks. How can you turn the other way when fellow human beings are suffering?
In that case, I guess any Buddhist monk will have two choices: either tell the "sufferers" that their plight is justified because the land truly belongs to them, or teach them that the suffering stems from being attached to things they don't really own.
4 comments:
Dude, I understand yours. But, it is about a loser that don't accept the truth or failure. That's all.
I might awake dinosaur to claim the earth from Human beings.
These people are not Buddhist monks, they are impostors and infidels. Buddhist monks are peaceful and always advocating peace, not wars like these fake monks. Remember, 3 of these monks jumped the border fence in Preah Vihear, got themselves arrested by Cambodian troops which led to the Thai invasion on 15th July 2008 and caused 3 armed clashes between Khmer and Thai troops. On 29th December 2010, at least 2 members of this sect, along with Panich and Veera Somkwamkid and others, crossed into Cambodia illegally and got themselves arrested. Lucky no fighting at the time. They are fake monks because they incite hatred and war between Khmers and Thais, instead of peace.
Asanti Soke Club will
Go to the Earth Center and stay there for a million years as a reward for its recent effort of demonstration against Cambodia. These 500 bandit clans used to roam around and raid Chinese towns during the 8-9th century AD now are rekindle their tradition as ancient terrorist.
Post a Comment