The Monk is back and would be coming up with something interesting soooon!

The Monk is back from a long unannounced rest. He would be answering some interesting questions soon...!!! Keep following!

The Monk Speaks on Intimacy, Love, Sex and Marriage

The following excerpt is a combination of answers to many questions asked from the Monk by readers. To save time, the Monk has decided to write this excerpt on the basis of the readers’ questions. He hopes everyone’s question is answered in this short excerpt]




The Buddha counsels a bereaved mother named Patachara

‘Just don’t give him your heart yet’ – the monk advised the daughter of a devout Buddhist mother. The monk’s advice was in response to the daughter’s fear that she might lose her long time boyfriend if she didn’t give into his insisting demand of sleeping together as a proof of her ‘commitment’ and ‘love’ for him. The monk tried to reassure the girl that ‘commitment’ and ‘love’ for one’s ‘potential life partner’ does not at all mean giving into premarital adventures. ‘Giving yourself into his demand though may seem to you the right thing to do for the moment to save the relationship, I don’t think it is safe enough yet to hope for the best out of it’, warned the monk. Pieces of ‘moral backups’, as the Monk calls it, of this nature are extremely important to spell out clearly the need for a stronger and deeper relationship that transcends demands of premarital sex among modern youths. Girls (mostly of Asian origins) by nature tend to be self-reserved and self-esteemed possessed of moral conscience that prevents them from jumping into being objects of easy approach. Yet they are often forced to forsake their moral conscience especially when they are left out with two options: yes or no. The Western culture of ‘sex on first date’ may have taken its form ‘kiss on first date’ in Asian contexts but the fact that the rate of teenage pregnancies and abortions is equally alarming in some Asian countries shows that Asian youths have gone some steps further in their adaptations of Western culture while forgetting to take a step back. The reason why Asian girls tend to be more self-reserved than their Western counterparts is that unlike Western people, Asian people are made to get heavily influenced by dos and don’ts of cultural and religious values. Virginity preserved for marriage or at least the first time is a serious business and a lifelong commitment for majority Asians and may it be long that way! But the world keeps on changing in favour of modern wants and needs producing some of the most terrible epidemics and trends witnessed ever such-as HIV/AIDS, free sex, sex industry and abortions to name but a few; and monks can no longer sit down eye-closed in their cave-cells when their Buddhist societies are collapsing. Hence you ought not to be surprised when you hear the monk counseling that girl on intimacy, love, sex and marriage. Sometimes you may ask ‘what does a monk know about such things?!’ Well, not much!!! But a monk is trained to be an ‘onlooker’, someone trained to observe and understand a problem at hand without being involved in it in person. Football players engaged in a football match inside an enclosed field may not be aware of what goes on inside the entire football field but an onlooker, say, the coach at the gallery, not involved in the game himself, is most likely to observe everything that goes on in the field. A monk is like that coach who instructs the players playing in societies. Nowadays, it is not that rare for a monk to get demanded to give instant solutions to social problems. ‘What possible advice would you give as a Buddhist (not as a monk) to a girl who is about to undergo an abortion?’, someone asked the Monk. ‘Why is the Buddhist commandment of having premarital sex a crime?’, asked another. Point noted. The two questions asked by two different persons refer to the cause-effect theory of Buddhism. The first question is the answer to the second question and vise versa. ‘Why would you have premarital sex if you are not ready for a child?! And why would you undergo an abortion fully knowing that it is your child who would be deprived of a precious human life?!’ If sex was not the only purpose of ‘reproduction’ (as the Monk was made to understand) then the Monk certainly thinks that ‘responsibility’ and ‘commitment’ should have been the core essence of that very act in the first place. Lets be informed that in Buddhism, prenuptial sex is not a crime in itself if, and only if, it is exercised under highest level ‘responsibility’ and ‘commitment’ rather than reckless explorations of sex. Sexual misconduct (not so much as sex outside marriage or before marriage), the kind of sex Buddhism forbids as wrong is rapes, promiscuity, adultery and prostitution. The physical relationship between an independent, committed and responsible man and a woman (i.e. boyfriend and girlfriend) therefore is certainly not a crime in Buddhism, provided they commit to their promises and together take up any responsibility that is likely to arise from their act. The problem of unwanted teenage pregnancies and girls wanting to undergo abortions is not a religious crime that needs to be dealt harshly so much as it is an irresponsible part played by the parties involved that needs social awareness and education.

The social institution of marriage at the time of the Buddha needed no much attention because ‘intimacy, love and sex’ was understood to be no different from marriage itself. Today, ‘intimacy, love and sex’ is one thing and marriage is another. But for many, intimacy, love and sex still refer to the institution of marriage. Marriage for a Buddhist is a deep bond of emotional and even spiritual involvement of a couple who are often believed to have the same karmic aspiration and connection. The karmic connectedness of a couple of course does not guarantee their eternity together. If marriage were to be viewed as a karmic connectedness then divorce would also have to be viewed from the same angle. The question of why is it so hard finding the right guy or the right woman would, then, be a question of when is karmic operation going to play its part. But modern experts on relationships would not view the same question from the same angle as a Buddhist would. ‘Approaching the wrong guy or the wrong woman at the wrong phase of time’ would seem for them to be more acceptable than attributing the same to karmic operation. But the question still is ‘when is the right time?’ In search of this ‘right time’, experts have given ‘methods’ and ‘ways’ to attract the right guy or right woman. But obviously, attracting someone and being attracted is no harder than holding onto him/her for longer as successful couples. Ultimately it is the weaknesses, goodness, failures and kindness of a person that counts in relationships and not how beautifully and attractively one attires, walks and talks.

Consideration, respect, trust, self-sacrifice and care are the five pillars of any relationship. By consideration, the Monk means reflecting upon one’s own actions (before they are exercised) for the long-term welfare and happiness of oneself, the partner and the child. By respect, it is meant respecting the values and principles of the partner by not demanding and insisting on things not mutually agreeable. Trust means not making assumptions about the partner. By self-sacrifice, the Monk means not working or acting on the dictation or fulfillment of self-interest; and by care, the Monk means being attentive and loving to the partner. Consider the following mutual expectations as recognized by Buddha himself some 25 centuries ago:

The man from his woman:

• — love
• — attentiveness
• — family obligations (for couples)
• — faithfulness
• — child-care (for couples)
• — thrift
• — to calm him down when he is upset
• — sweetness in everything

The woman from her man:

• — tenderness
• — courtesy
• — sociability
• — security
• — fairness
• — loyalty
• — honesty
• — good companionship
• — moral support

The high rate of divorce and break ups are therefore due to the lack of compromise and exercise of these mutual expectations in relationships. They constitute what a Buddhist may understand as intimacy, love, sex and marriage aspects of any relationship whose goal is that of a long-term basis. Sexual act alone, therefore, seems so trivial in the face of these more essential qualities that Buddhism can accommodate homosexuality and lesbianism. Now the question is: why would Buddhism accommodate that? Sex, though an integral part of a man-woman relationship, is never the main reason why people should become couples. Some people cannot accept homosexuality and lesbianism on the argument that these people don’t have sex in the usual way (i.e. involving vagina and penis). But the irony is that the people who argue like this forget to denounce oral and anal sex as well! According to their argument, if homosexuality was improper because it doesn’t involve the combination of vagina and penis, then certainly oral and anal sex would also be improper because they also don’t involve the combination of vagina and penis. Now the main reason why Buddhists could accommodate homosexuality is because by the term sexual intercourse, we understand as all kinds of sexual intercourse involving genitals (literally, the "urine path" — i.e., a woman's vagina or a man's penis), the anus and/or the mouth. In summary, the combination of genitals, anus and/or mouth implies sex in Buddhism (mouth-to-mouth is not sex). Now as to whether Buddhism does really allow oral and anal sex is a tricky question. The third of the five Buddhist precepts states that ‘the wrongful exercise in sensualities’ is to be avoided. The wrongful exercise in sensualities is explained by Buddhist commentators as ‘sexual misconduct’ involving rapes, adultery, promiscuity and prostitution. Not only that, some Buddhist commentators even went as far as explaining that any sexual act other than the combination of vagina and penis, which is the traditionally assumed way of having sex, is to be considered as sexual misconduct! If the first explanation is taken separately, then homosexuality, lesbianism, oral and anal sex could be accommodated in Buddhism. But if the second explanation is also taken into consideration then even a lawfully married husband and wife could break the third Buddhist precept if they engage in oral and anal sex! However, having examined every possible canonical passages connected with this issue, the Monk found out that Buddha often gave discourses on ‘indulgence in sensuality’ which has sexuality as its integral part. In describing this ‘indulgence in sensuality’, He himself repeatedly used the words – ‘low’, ‘vulgar’, ‘ordinary’, ‘ignoble’ and ‘meaningless’. Note that words like ‘wrongful’, ‘unacceptable’, ‘illegal’ and ‘crime’ were not used. The Buddha’s understanding and acceptance of sex in any form performed by worldly people seems all the more practical by his usage of terms like ‘low’, ‘vulgar’, ‘ordinary’, ‘ignoble’ and ‘meaningless’. Obviously, sex cannot be that noble, holy and spiritual, especially because animals also can perform that, sometimes even better than humans. Buddha refuses to accept sex in any form for a higher spiritual life because sex makes people slave to their desires, cravings and endless sensual gratifications; and being a spiritual type, Buddha certainly cannot accommodate sex in any form within the context of a higher spiritual life. And this is why monks and nuns cannot have sex in any form because they are meant to represent that higher spiritual life whose ideal model is the Buddha himself.

Buddhism Under Siege From Within

The following is the original draft of the article which was later published by the buddhist channel...http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,8361,0,0,1,0 after revision and edition


By Bhikkhu K. Tanchangya

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Kandy, Sri Lanka---The latest attempt to proselytize the Buddhist world comes in the form of a book titled ‘Peoples of the Buddhist World: A Christian Prayer Guide’ by Hattaway Paul. Anthropologically, the book deserves credit for its excellent well-researched academic fieldwork so much as it deals with the 238 distinct people-group profiles, photographs and maps of the Buddhist world – something that we Buddhists are incapable of producing. But the most conspicuous enterprise of the book is not hidden in itself: a know-how layout of Christian evangelical interests and zeal, a battlefront drawn to start craftily attacking the peoples of the Buddhist world. We, the educated and affluent Buddhists, however, should thank the author, an active evangelic leader for producing such an enlightening overview of the peoples of the Buddhist world because majority of the 238 groups mentioned by him have never been our headache to know. Indeed, majority of these Buddhist communities are ‘little-known and often forgotten…and some of the most neglected peoples of the world’. Much has been said on the evil intentions of the Christian evangelical missionaries for trying to ‘pray and touch the souls of ordinary people’ and bringing them into ‘the merciful rescue of God, the ruler of heaven’. My intention here is neither to write a review of the book condemning it as anti-Buddhist (which I should do as a staunch Buddhist) nor to parrot the accusations labeled against such greedy evangelical missionaries (knowing that the faulty system lies within) but to urge my fellow educated and affluent Buddhist brothers and sisters of the civilized world to understand that the wisest solution to such proselytization of the Buddhist world does not lie on how logically and convincingly we can criticize such undertakings and how many anti-conversion laws we succeed to enact so much as it lies on the reexamination of our own Buddhist system within.

It is often proudly claimed by us Buddhists that Buddhism has survived for 2500 years armed with its teachings of non-violence, tolerance, ability for different adaptation, and compassion. Perhaps we have forgotten the lost history of Buddhist lands of the entire Indian subcontinent. We have lost Afghanistan and Pakistan (East and West) to Muslim invaders, India and Nepal to Hindus, far eastern regions of the Middle East to hard-line Muslims and starting from the 20th century to now we are at the edge of losing the few Buddhist communities that survived the historic onslaught of Islamic invaders on these Buddhist lands to the present merciless onslaught of Christian evangelism. The few Buddhist countries remained today are also having large numbers of growing followers of other religions notably Christians. The 20th century Korea is an example of how easy it is indeed for Buddhists to be prey for Christian evangelism. Having lost so much, how much more are we waiting to lose? – is a question that every progressive Buddhist needs to look for an answer.

Historically, the strength of Buddhism evolved centered on its monastic priesthood. The institution of priesthood became the backbone of the entire Buddhist community in any given social context, be it Theravada, Mahayana or Tibetan throughout its 2500 years of history. The success of Buddhism is often measured by the strength of the monastic priesthood. The traditional defenders of Buddhism have been and are the monks. Consequently, Buddhist adherents tend to look too much up to the monastic priesthood. And this is a devastating trend of our Buddhist system, especially at a time when the monastic priesthood is losing its pristine social and spiritual position as moral models and embodiments of love, compassion and wisdom. For the last many decades the Buddhist monastic sangha in every Buddhist country has not been faring well enough to retain its followers and attract new converts. Some monks have been busy filling up pockets while some others have been poorly trained to cope with modern challenges and yet some other monks have been fighting for ecclesiastical ranking and power within the monastic sangha leaving a vacuum of promising and creative social and religious leadership within the Buddhist circles. Christian evangelicals have not failed to fill up that vacuum in no time. It is unofficially believed that the private properties owned by the monastic sangha may well surpass the private properties owned by the government of any given Buddhist country. Enormous public generosity has produced some of the richest monks and temples ever seen in Buddhist history while millions of Buddhists unknown to many of us Buddhists have been left out on their own, neglected and forgotten for centuries. Even the very existence of the small but distinct minority Buddhist communities of Burma, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Tibet and Mongolia to name but a few is hardly ever known to the educated and affluent Buddhist world. The Buddhist communities of this part of the globe somehow manage to survive with the harshest realities of existence sticking to their Buddhist identities under oppressive and unfriendly governments without any help and consolation from their fellow Buddhists living in the more affluent parts of the globe. Is it their karma? How long more do we expect them to continue under the banner of Buddhism faced with everyday realities? Cannot Buddhism change their karma? Cannot the call of Buddha give them a hope, a chance to live a more affluent life? Any Buddhist claiming that even Buddha cannot alter the course of peoples’ living standard, say unto him terribly wrong. In any case, if Buddha cannot promise to help these desperate people who have been yawning for change and a better life, why shouldn’t they look up to a foreign God who promises them immediate prosperity, wealth and change here and eternal heaven hereafter? Indeed, ‘new God, new country’ – a phrase often utilized by missionaries to pinpoint modern Korea under Christianity – has been an enticing and eye-catching example of change brought about by Christian evangelism. It is time for the progressive Buddhists to meditate on this. Yes, these Buddhist communities are illiterate and poor – easy targets for evangelism. But they deserve education and material prosperity before they could think of religion. And evangelical missionaries are providing just that. Why cannot the richest monks, richest temples and richest Buddhist organizations of the affluent world mobilize work teams to visit and look into the grievances of these forgotten fellow Buddhists? Why are we just shouting at others who are helping them when we chose not to act ourselves?

The Buddhist teachings of karma, rebirth, suffering, selflessness, and contentment have all been part and partial of a deeper level of misunderstanding of Buddhism even among the most educated and affluent civilized Buddhists, and their misunderstanding has been a boon for the greedy missionaries to take advantage of these Buddhist teachings. Somebody is born poor because it’s his karma; someone is suffering and dying without proper hospice care – so what? – he got lots more births coming up next; somebody is poor but wants to have a better life – why cannot he stay poor and practice contentment? This is the mentality of Buddhists towards those who are at the bottom; no matter how openly they deny, this has been proved to be the case. Highly spiritual monks and committed practicing lay Buddhists tend to overlook the necessity of material development. But what these people forget to realize is that there cannot be spirituality where there is widespread hunger and poverty; and healthy spirituality cannot exist where there is widespread illiteracy, ignorance and superstitions. It is only in the very recent time that the affluent Buddhist world has felt the need to counter evangelism by establishing parallel institutions like schools, colleges, hospitals, aged homes and carry out relief works but the fact that this is largely to meet the needs of the local community, this is yet to affect the millions of forgotten Buddhists in unknown parts of the world. And this raises the extreme Buddhist need to establish cohesive, well-financed, dedicated and inspired international Buddhist organizations to safeguard the very existence of the peoples of the Buddhist world through active participation on field. But it is easy said than done. Accept it or not, Buddhists tend to be very proud and suspicious of fellow Buddhists. The powerful ecclesiastical monastic sangha of Thailand wouldn’t allow temples of any Buddhist country to be built on its soil, while the building of a Theravada temple in the Korean soil is most likely to be seen as an attempt to Theravadize the Mahayanist Koreans. Such is the suspicion and pride among Buddhists of different countries. Some other Buddhists yet take pride in promoting so-called inter-religious dialogues between Buddhists and Christians, between Buddhists and Muslims but the irony is that Buddhists of Theravada, Mahayana and Tibetan do not get along together at all. Sadly there is hardly any effective contact between and among these three major Buddhist dominations. Economically weak Theravada Buddhist temples and monks of Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Laos and Cambodia have been struggling to cater the needs of their respective native followers living in the West, while economically stronger Mahayana Buddhist temples and monks of China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan have been struggling to expand their influences throughout the rich West pouring millions of dollars for building temples and universities there, and yet Tibetan monks have been struggling to get fame and popularity to draw the attention of the world to their Tibetan issue. All these trends effectively left the millions of native Buddhists forgotten and neglected at home and in unknown lands who are in dire need of financial investments, education, creative leadership and social betterment more than the West. It is a very devastating thing to believe that the West needs promising monks and Buddhist leaders more than anyone else. The Western public is intelligent and affluent but it is we, the Asians, who have taught them the Dharma. So it makes no difference for us whether they walk feet up and heads down, especially because such people are Buddhists in heads more than in their hearts. But the forgotten Buddhists of these unknown lands are our fellow Buddhists for centuries with identical Buddhist culture and history but are not getting what they deserve from their more fortunate and affluent fellow Buddhists. This being the case, how ethical are we to oppose anyone who goes to standby, help and live with these unwanted peoples of the Buddhist world? What Buddhist doctrine can we possibly use to justify and declare that such an action is immoral? Come on, let us be frank. Even the most fanatic Buddhists among us would have to accept the fact that no matter with what ulterior evil motives the Evangelicals choose to help such forgotten and neglected peoples, the intrinsic goodness of their action is something that cannot be denied or downplayed. And this only questions our inability and unwillingness to help our own fellow Buddhists. Indeed, evangelical groups are proving to be very successful with their slogan - ‘believe in Jesus, he will be always with you’. Many things would change if we Buddhists could learn to say ‘we are your friends in your need’ and prove our say with our active social engagement. The kind of Humanistic Buddhism promoted by some creative and progressive Buddhists or Engaged Buddhism as promoted by some is not inclusive enough because it has effectively failed to address and respond to the acute needs of these forgotten Buddhist communities who are now the targets of Christian evangelism. Indeed, the greatest challenge of sectarian Buddhist traditions and organizations is the unwillingness and hesitation to help those who are not following the form of Buddhism each of them follows. There seems to be the demand of internal evangelization within and among various sectarian Buddhists before they could be considered fit for help. The most affluent Mahayana Buddhists of Korea and Taiwan, for example, might not be willing to go and help those neglected Buddhist ethnic groups scattered throughout the border areas of Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh and India who are followers of Theravada Buddhism, while the able Theravada Buddhists of Thailand, Sri Lanka and Burma might not be willing to come out for the ethnic minorities of the Himalayan regions who are mostly followers of Tibetan Buddhism. This is certainly not the kind of mentality the Buddha would very much like his followers to have towards fellow Buddhists. The result is that this has effectively barred the interaction between and among the various sectarian groups of Buddhism.

Let’s not deny the historical fact that Buddha was the first and a successful leader of missionary activities hundreds of years before Christ got the smell of this earth. Let’s not pretend that we Buddhists do not convert followers. We do but the difference in us is that we love to target the most educated, the most affluent, and the most intelligent pundits of the world rather than taking advantage of peoples’ poverty and illiteracy. We take peoples’ intelligence and wisdom to our advantage which is the uniqueness of Buddhist evangelism. Perhaps this very prospect is leading us to the other disadvantage: losing our fellow poor, neglected and illiterate Buddhists. And this only calls for the implementation of the much acclaimed Buddhist ‘Middle Way’.

The well established large monastic sanghas and lay Buddhist organizations of the known Buddhist world are effectively failing to perform their duties well enough due to unscrupulous remnants of corruption, misbehaviors, mismanagement and inefficiency within. Some of these monastic sanghas need internal reformation to cope with modern challenges. The high rate of disrobing among the intelligent, educated, energetic and promising young clergy is indeed a headache for many of us. Yet despite all these weaknesses and shortcomings there are lots more that can be done, if we are only willing and are truly selfless – ‘for the welfare and happiness of many’, the slogan used by the Buddha himself to denote his kind of evangelism.

How many of the 238 plus people-groups of the Buddhist world would soon fall into victims of Christian evangelism is something we, as informed Buddhists, cannot wait any longer to see. It is time for the Buddhists to launch a counter attack and rescue those ill equipped Buddhists from the bloody hands of Jesus, the man who couldn’t rescue himself from his own crucified cross.

Planning the Demise of Buddhism

Book Review by Allen Carr, LankaWeb, July 1, 2008

London, UK -- Some Western drug companies spend millions of dollars developing and marketing a new drug only to have the health authorities later discover that it has dangerous side-effects and then ban it.
Needing to recover their investment and unable to sell their drug in the West some of these companies try to market their dangerous products in the Third World where public
awareness of health issues is low and indifferent governments can be brought off. Some might say that Christianity is a bit like this.

Having lost much of their following in the West, churches are now beginning to look for opportunities elsewhere. Of course the Islamic world is out of the question. Even the most optimistic evangelist knows that the chance of spreading the Gospel amongst Muslims is nil. The obvious targets are Africa, India and the Buddhist countries of Asia..

There are now several evangelical organizations dedicated just too evangelizing Buddhists. The Asia Pacific Institute of Buddhist Studies in the Philippines offers missionaries in-depth courses in Buddhist doctrine, the languages of Buddhist countries and the sociology of various Buddhist communities – the better to know the enemy..

The Central Asia Fellowship is geared specifically to spreading the Gospel amongst Tibetans. The Overseas Missionary Fellowship is 'an acknowledged authority on Buddhism' and 'is available to conduct training sessions and seminars, give presentations and speak on how Christians can work effectively in the Buddhist world.' The Sonrise Centre for Buddhist Studies and the South Asia Network are both on-line communities providing missionaries with detailed, accurate and up-to-date information useful for evangelizing Buddhists. Make no mistake, these are not small ad-hock groups. They are large, well-financed, superbly run organizations staffed by highly motivated and totally dedicated people and they are in it for the long haul.

A book called Peoples of the Buddhist World has recently been published by one of the leaders of this new evangelical assault on Buddhism. The book's 453 pages offer missionaries and interested Christians a complete profile of 316 Buddhist ethnic and linguistic groups in Asia, from the Nyenpa of central Bhutan to the Kui of northern Cambodia, from the Buriats of the Russian Far East to the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka.

There is a detailed breakdown of the size of each group, how many call themselves Buddhists and how many actually know and practice it, which languages they speak, their strengths and how to overcome them, their weaknesses and how to take advantage of them, an overview of their history, their culture and the best ways to evangelize them.
The book is filled with fascinating and beautiful color photos of all of these peoples, many of them little-known. It makes one very sad to think that these gentle, smiling, innocent folk are in now in the sights of worldly-wise missionaries determined to undermine their faith and destroy their ancient cultures. However, Hattaway book is also interesting for the lurid glimpse it gives into the bizarre mentality and the equally bizarre theology of the evangelical Christians. In the preface Hattaway asks, "Does it break God's heart today that hundreds of millions of Buddhists are marching to hell with little or no gospel witness? Does it break the Savior's heart that millions worship lifeless idols instead of the true, glorious Heavenly Father?"

No wonder the evangelicals are always so angry and defensive, so self-conscious and full of nervous energy.. Every day they live with the contradictory belief that their God is full of love and yet throws people into eternal hell-fire, even people who have never heard of him. That must be a real strain. Like a man who has to continually pump air into a leaking balloon to keep it inflated, they have to keep insisting that Buddhism is just an empty worthless idolatry when they know very well that this is not true. That must be a real strain too. Throughout his book Hattaway repeats all the old lies, slanders and half-truths that missionaries peddled in the 19th century but which mainline Christians gave up on a hundred years ago.

Hattaway claims that Buddhists, like other non-Christians, are leading empty meaningless lives and are actually just waiting to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, the statistics he presents to his readers do not always bare this out. He shows that some Buddhist groups have been subjected to quite intense evangelization for years and yet have chosen to keep their faith. For example 32% of Kyerung of Nepal have heard the Gospel but 'few have understood the heart of the message.' Hattaway tells us that 'the American Baptists worked in the Tovyan area (of Burma) for many decades, but most of the converts they made were among the Karen people. They found the Tovyan people 'slow to respond to the gospel – a pattern that continues to this day.'

Dedicated and self-sacrificing missionaries have labored in Thailand for over 140 years but have made only miniscule numbers of converts. According to Hattaway there are 2000 foreign missionaries operating in Chiangmai - more than the actual number of Christians in the city.

It is hearting to know that amongst evangelicals Thailand has been dubbed 'the graveyard of missionaries.' Twenty one percent of Lao Ga people have been evangelized but 'Christianity has yet to make any impact on this people group.' Forty two percent of the Lemo have been told about Jesus but their 'strong belief in Buddhism and their isolated cultural mindset have prevented them from accepting the Gospel.' Of course Hattaway's 'isolated cultural mindset' prevents him from even considering that these people might have decided not to become Christians because Buddhism gives them the emotional, intellectual and spiritual sustenance they need. So he has to explain why so many Buddhists remain what he calls 'resistant peoples' some other way. To him it is because of fear (p.217), intellectual laziness (p.149), greed and blindness (p.172) and or course 'demonic opposition' (p.190). Another cause is delusion, as for example amongst the Palaung of northern Burma, who are so completely deluded that 'they believe they have the truth in Buddhism'(p.217).

Of course, Hattaway is also crafty enough to know that the stability and cultural integrity of traditional Buddhist societies is a major hindrance to their evangelization. Civil wars such as in Sri Lanka and Cambodia are literally a god-send for the missionaries. Hatthaway calls the disruption and displacement of the Loba people of Nepal by several huge floods 'a God-given opportunity' (p.168). Like blowflies to a dying animal evangelical missionaries swarm around communities in need so they can win converts while disguising their efforts as 'aid work' and 'humanitarian relief.'

Unfortunately, many genuine and decent Christians in the West, unaware of this hidden agenda, give money to World Vision and similar organizations that use aid as a conversion technique. But while many Buddhists have rejected the missionaries' message others have succumbed to it. Thirty one percent of the Tamangs of Nepal have now become Christians. The first missionaries arrived in Mongolia in 1990 and within a few years they had made thousands of converts, mainly among the young. This phenomenal growth has now slowed considerably but the number of evangelical agencies operating within the country has grown enormously and there are still almost no books on Buddhism in Mongolian.

In China today Christianity is growing so fast that they can hardly build the churches quick enough to hold all the new converts. The gentle hill tribes people of Thailand and Laos are falling prey to the missionaries one by one. These and the numerous other successes are not just because the missionaries have been so unscrupulous and persistent but because Buddhists have been so indifferent, so slow to see the danger and even more slow to respond to it in any effective manner.

In Thailand millions are spent on glittering ceremonies, huge Buddha statues and gold leaf for covering stupas but almost nothing on Buddhist literature, religious education and social services for the hill tribes. Another 'God-given opportunity' for the missionaries is the general lackadaisical attitude within the much of the Sangha. In one of the most revealing (about the mentality of both missionaries and the bhikkhus) and troubling parts of this book is Bryan Lurry's account of the four months he stayed in a monastery in the Shan states in north-eastern Burma. He was there to assess the prospects of converting Buddhist bhikkhus and he went away full of optimism. I fear that his optimism was not entirely misplaced. The abbot where Lurry stayed allowed him to teach the bhikkhus English (using the Bible as a text of course), show a film on the life of Christ and later even conduct regular Bible classes for the bhikkhus. Uninformed Western Buddhists might laud this as yet another example of Buddhist tolerance, albeit misplaced tolerance. I suspect that it was actually due to ignorance and to that indifference to everything that does not rock the boat or contravene traditional patterns of behavior that is so prevalent in much of the Sangha.

As a part of his strategy to understand their thinking, Lurry asked his 'friends' a series of questions. To the question 'What is the most difficult Buddhist teaching to follow?' some bhikkhus answered not eating after noon, not being able to drink alcohol and one said to attain nirvana. To the question 'If you could change one thing about yourself what would it be?' The replies included to be stronger, taller, to change the shape of the nose and to have more pale skin. When asked why they had joined the monastery not one of the bhikkhus mentioned an interest in the Dhamma, in meditation or in the religious life in general. As is usual in much of the Buddhist world they had probably ordained simply because it is the tradition to do so. When Lurry asked the bhikkhus if they would ever disrobe for any reason 'my students expressed their desire to leave the temple in order to be soldiers in the Shan Independence army...They did not see a contradiction in the fact that, as monks, they are literally not supposed to kill a mosquito, much less another human being.' Lurry admits that he was really surprised that so few of the replies he got suggested any deep knowledge of Buddhism or an apparent genuine religiosity.

Having lived in Thai monasteries for eight years I am sad to say that none of the bhikkhus' replies surprised me in the least. All too often today the Buddhist monastic life consists of little more than rote learning, unthinking acceptance of traditional beliefs, an endless round of mind-numbing rituals, going to danas and having long naps. Fortunately, many Buddhist communities are holding out against missionary efforts but with poor religious education and little leadership from a sedate Sangha how long will they continue to be able to continue to do so? Something has to be done and it has to be done soon.

Another old missionary calumny repeated throughout Hattaway's book is that Buddhists live in constant terror of devils and demons. This accusation is rather amusing coming from the evangelical Christians who see almost everything they don't like as the machinations of Satan and his minions. Lurry says of his experience, 'I must admit that the temples intimidated me. I saw many items that discouraged me from entering. At some temples, fierce-looking statues of creatures with long fangs and sharp claws guard the entrance. Guarding the main hall of many temples are two large statues of dragons with multiple heads on either side of the staircase...If such images were on the outside of the temple, what would I find on the inside? I half imagined that these creatures would somehow come to life and attempt to harm me' (p..234).

I can understand how simple, often illiterate hill tribesmen in the backblocks of Burma could be frightened of malevolent spirits. But Mr. Lurry is a graduate of the University of North Texas and he is frightened of bits of painted cement and plaster used to decorate Buddhist temples. How easy it is to scare evangelical Christians!

Nine pages in Peoples of the Buddhist World are devoted to the Sinhalese, the native people of Sri Lanka, long a target of missionary endeavors. Despite nearly 500 years of close contact with Christianity only 4% of Sinhalese are Christian and this is despite periods when their religion was severely disadvantaged and even actively persecuted. It both perplexes and infuriates the evangelists that they have had so little success in this staunchly Buddhist island.

Since the late 1950's the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka has tacitly accepted its minority status and for the most part adapted a live and let live attitude towards Buddhism. It has continued its conversion efforts but in a low-key and respectful way. But starting in the 1990's evangelical organizations have literally swamped Sri Lanka and they have a 'no quarter asked for, none given' attitude. So far most of their converts have been amongst Catholics, to the consternation of the Catholic Church, but of course the real target is the Buddhists. Buddhist bhikkhus are calling on the government to enact laws against conversion. But is this really the best solution?

It is quite understandable that the Sinhalese do not like their religion being referred to as 'Satanic devil worship' especially by foreigners, which is what most of the missionaries in the country are. Some years ago a deeply respected Sinhalese bhikkhu died and there was a veritable outpouring of grief among the Buddhist public. At the very time of this bhikkhu's funeral the leader of a house church in an outer suburb of Colombo, let off fireworks, the usual way people express delight or celebration in Sri Lanka. Naturally, the Buddhists around this church were deeply offended and although no violence occurred some very angry words were exchanged. I happened to witness the locals' confrontation with this church leader. He insisted that his crackers had nothing to do with the bhikkhu's funeral but was unable to give a convincing reason why he had ignited them. Throughout his encounter with his neighbors he was brazen, unapologetic about his actions and dismissive of the peoples' hurt feelings. I can only say that he gave me the distinct impression that he would have welcomed being manhandled or beaten so that he could claim for himself the title that evangelicals so long to have – that of martyr for their Lord.

Hattaway's book highlights incidents of violence against Christians in Sri Lanka and elsewhere which have unfortunately started to become all too common. Of course, what he fails to mention is that it is only the evangelicals, not Catholics or mainline Christians, who attract such negative reactions.. And of course he fails to mention why people sometimes get so angry at the evangelicals. The fact is that it is their bad-mannered pushiness and their complete insensitivity to the religious feelings of others that is the cause of such violence. This is not to excuse the violence but only to explain why it happens.

It is also true that some of the more extreme evangelists even sometimes deliberately provoke confrontations. I have two evangelical tracts from Sri Lanka – one insists that villages must become 'a battlefield for souls' and the other says that Christians must 'confront the unsaved, yes even forcibly confront them, and compel them to make a decision.' And it is not just Buddhists who are offended by the evangelicals’ rude aggressive behavior. A Chinese Thai born-again Christian once informed me that the Pope is actually 'the prostitute of the Anti-Christ' and showed me the Bible passage that proved it. I could only laugh at his half-baked hermeneutics.. But how would a devout Catholic have felt being told such a thing?

The section on Sri Lanka in Hattaway's book is written by Tilak Rupasinghe and Vijaya Karunaratna, two well-known evangelical preachers. They gleefully highlight Sri Lanka's many woes – civil war, high suicide rate, corruption, insurrection – and of course present this as just more evidence that Buddhism is false. Then they make the bold claim, 'In Christ there can be healing from the wounds of injustice, oppression and ethnic hatred...In Christ there can be hope for the redemption of the nation, its land, its language, its culture and its people.' This is a seductive promise and one that some people might be willing to listen to. But of course it is the same old spurious and empty promise missionaries have always made in the lands they try to evangelize; 'What a mess your country is in! Your gods have failed. Accept Jesus Christ and everything will be wonderful.'

But does Christianity really do a better job of solving social problems? The evidence that it does is very thin. Christianity failed miserably to bring peace to northern Ireland, in fact, it was the main cause of the problem. Germany's long tradition of Catholicism and Protestantism did not prevent Nazism taking root there. South Africa's Dutch Reformed Church was an ardent supporter of apartheid and all its oppression and cruelty. The prevalence of evangelical Christianity in the southern United States, the so-called 'Bible Belt,' has not prevented it being the poorest and most raciest part of that country. And the racial segregation in the south is never more obvious than on Sunday morning when black and white people still go to separate churches; 'Hallelujha and praise the Lord but worship him in your own church!'

Hattaway's book is or at least should be a wake-up call for we Buddhists. Unless we reform the Sangha, better organize ourselves and make more of an effort to both know and apply our religion the Light of Asia may be snuffed out.

What was the Actual Language Spoken by the Buddha?!

English, Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese or any of the European languages is certainly not the language/s spoken by the historic Buddha who lived in central India around five centuries before Christ. Modern Indian languages like Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Gujarati, Sinhalese and the like were not there in the sixth century before Christ. So, what language did Buddha speak?! Well, until as latest as the 20th century, ‘Pali’, an ancient Indian homogenous dialect, is claimed to have been the actual language spoken by the historic Buddha. This traditional orthodox belief is still very, very strong among the Theravada Buddhists of South and Southeast Asia. This is particularly much more so because their scriptural Canon was written in Pali around one century before Christ in ancient Sri Lanka (that is almost 4-5 hundred years after the death of Buddha). No one knows for certain whether Pali was a living language until that time and/or a lingua franca of the Buddhists of hinter India and Sri Lanka. It has ceased to be a living language though. Starting from the second half of the 20th century up to now, ample evidences have been produced by critical scholarship to suggest that Pali, as claimed to have been the actual language spoken by the Buddha, was not even a language at all! Scholarly debates on Pali as Buddha’s own language have seen hundreds of theories against and for it. Here the Monk would not go into A-Z of that debate, which often confuses the reader more, rather than answering his own inquisition. Putting aside the traditional belief that Buddha did actually speak Pali, let the Monk reiterate a couple of points against it.
Textually, by Pali, it was originally meant ‘written text’ as opposed to ‘spoken words’. As late as the fifth century after Christ, Pali was used to refer to the ‘written texts’ of the Buddhist Canonical Scriptures of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). It was never used to refer to the spoken language of the Buddha as such. Pali came to be reckoned as a ‘language’, for the first time, in a Sinhalese chronicle named ‘Rasavahni’, a very, very late text. Sinhalese monks as late as the fifth century after Christ started linking Pali with ‘Magadhi’, a dialect said to have been the language of Magadha, the kingdom where Buddhism arose. Keeping in mind that Buddha was originally from Kapilavatthu, a tribal territory under the sovereign of another powerful and the largest kingdom of the time – Kosala, he often introduced himself as a ‘Kosalan’ (to put it in modern terms, he was holding a Kosalan passport), not a ‘Magadhan’ as many traditionalists who claim Magadhi to be the native language of Buddha would wish him to be. This alone proves that Buddha did not speak a single ‘language’ – Magadhi (=Pali?). The traditional belief that Buddha only used Magadhi/Pali as his medium of communication is extremely thin. The traditional belief even went so far as to state that Buddha asked his followers to learn his teachings in ‘HIS OWN LANGUAGE’ (Sakaya-nirutti) (i.e. Magadhi used by Buddha as explained by later monks). The term used by Buddha to refer to a territorial dialect was ‘nirutti’ and he asked his followers to learn his teachings in ‘sakaya-nirutti’. Sakaya means ‘his/her/one’s own’. The problem here is being ‘sakaya’: is it referring to Buddha’s own language or the language of the respective learners. If it is taken as ‘Buddha’s own language’, then it should be the language of Kosala because he was a native of Kosala country! But though taken likewise, the Theravada monks insist that Buddha meant his own language which is Magadhi-nirutti/Pali (the language in which their scriptures are written). However, this is largely fabricated because in another earliest recorded source Buddha is quoted as saying that one should not stick to territorial dialects. Buddha himself reiterated that diversity of language does not change the commonly designated meanings of objects. He gave the example of a ‘bowl’ known by seven terms in seven different territories: pātī, patta (patta is Pali), vitta, sarāva, dhāropa, poņa and pisīlava. Buddha mentioning these seven different territorial dialectical words means that he was a linguist in the then known Indian world. The Indian subcontinent was and is very rich and diverse in languages and dialects. A person coming from this area most likely to know several languages and dialects like Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Gujarati and many more. So, knowing that the Buddha was going to every corner of India known that time for teaching and meeting people, who on earth can logically and convincingly argue that Buddha used only Magadhi as his medium of communication and instruction!!! Surely there is no record at all to suggest that Buddha had a personal interpreter or translator as the Dalai Lama does. It is very, very certain that Buddha himself was multi-lingual. Proof? Well, see the example of the bowl mentioned above. Now the question is: how did Buddha manage to learn so many different dialects? Well, the main reason is wherever Buddha went he stayed there for at least a couple of days interacting with the locals; and linguistically the different territorial dialects are not that very different. Knowing one dialect very well, one can at least understand many, if cannot speak fluently. So, picking up some very important words here and there to convey his essential message could not have been a difficult task for a person like the Buddha.

Still however the above discussion does not answer the question as to whether Pali, the language in which the Theravada Canon is written, was one of many of those dialects spoken by the Buddha. Part of the answer could be yes, Pali could have been one of the dialects spoken by the Buddha. The proof is the above mentioned word ‘patta’ which is a Pali word used by the Buddha to refer to a ‘bowl’. But one very cautious warning is: by this, don’t think that the kind of Pali you find or read in the written forms today is exactly the kind of Pali you might think to have existed during Buddha’s time. The Pali written texts came into existence 4-5 hundred years after the death of the Buddha. Within this long gap 4-5 hundred years, any unstable and imperfect dialect, say for instance, Pali was not beyond adaptation. King Asoka, a Buddhist king who ruled the Indian subcontinent from Magadha (the same country where Buddhism arose), lived during the 3rd century B.C., i.e. three hundred odd years after Buddha’s death. The interesting point is, Pali whose original name is said to be Magadhi, the language of Magadha, did not find predominance in all the records left by king Asoka in the forms of pillars and tombs scattered all over the Indian subcontinent. None of the forms of dialects used by Asoka in his pillars represents the exact form of Pali that is used in the written composition of the Buddhist Canonical texts, whose adherents strongly believe Pali was Magadhi, a dialect actually spoken by the Buddha in Magadha.

By and large, one of the very safe and convincing conclusions would be that though the Theravada canonical language what we now know as Pali can have some credits to have been closest to the forms and mixture of many dialects which might have been spoken by the Buddha, it is never the exact form used during the 6th century before Christ, let alone the sectarian claim that Pali alone was the very language spoken by the historic Buddha.

Got any question for the Monk? Send your question/s to askthemonk@hotmail.com

Why isn’t the Dalai Lama a heartthrob for the Theravada Buddhists?!

Dear Monk,

I am an Asian Buddhist grown up with a Theravada Buddhist background but have been living in the West for the last many years. One thing I noticed here is that whenever HH the Dalai Lama comes to the West, people go crazy. This is something I have not seen in Asian Buddhist countries. May be I am wrong but I don’t think his name is even known well in the Theravada Buddhist world. I often wonder why he isn’t a heartthrob for the Theravada Buddhists as he is for the West. Please explain.

By the way, I appreciate your attempt to answer questions of Buddhist interests! Keep it up.

Chamri

Dear Chamri,

Part of the answer to your inquisition lies in the premise that the Dalai Lama isn’t a heartthrob for the Theravada Buddhists as he is for the West perhaps because the message of ‘peace and non-violence’, credited to him by the West as his exclusive invention, is but a legacy the Theravada Buddhists have inherited and embedded in their hearts hundreds of years before the modern West has come into contact with it through HH the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama possesses nothing new which can throb the Theravada Buddhists’ hearts. However, a broader examination on this issue should be approached on three delicate aspects and complexities that make the Dalai Lama extremely not popular in the Theravada Buddhist world: religious, cultural and political.

Religiously, the Theravada Buddhists have inherited the form of Buddhism unanimously accepted by all Buddhist traditions to be the earliest, if not the original, which is believed to contain the actual words of the historic Buddha. The form of Buddhism, on the other hand, the Dalai Lama represents mostly originates from Indian Masters extending up to 10th century AD, which is more than a thousand years later than the historic Buddha. Therefore, in no way the Theravada Buddhists are willing to exchange their oldest Buddhist legacy with something that is publicly and historically accepted and proved to be of later origins. Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion of whom the Dalai Lama is believed to be a worldly manifestation, Ksitigarbha, the bodhisattva who resides in hells, Amitabha, the Buddha who rules the western paradise to name but a few are all alien to Theravada Buddhists so much so that they refuse to accept these ‘enlightened beings’, as it were, as essentially that of Buddhist. Even the very attribute of ‘living Buddha’ attached to the Dalai Lama comes to the Theravada Buddhists as extremely reserved. (Note that the office of Dalai Lama extends back not more than five hundred years which is, more or less, a modern invention and the Dalai Lama is attributed to be a manifestation of an enlightened Buddha on the basis of ‘newly found texts’ in Tibet). Buddhist history shows that Theravada was at loggerheads with Mahayana (Dalai Lama is a Mahayanist), a revolutionized Buddhist movement centuries after the Buddha’s demise. While Mahayana seems to have been very accommodating in its collection, composition, compilation and interpretation of Buddhist doctrines, Theravada remained to be the hardcore and orthodox form of Buddhism till today. Hence, if the Dalai Lama, a Mahayanist goes on a preaching tour to the Theravada Buddhist world that would certainly be seen as Mahayana evangelism which would ultimately do more harm than good to the historic fragile relationship that exists between Mahayana and Theravada. And certainly the Dalai Lama wouldn’t like himself to be seen as a Mahayana evangelist by his fellow Buddhists. The Theravada’s opposition to Mahayana evangelism is historical. In around the fifth century after Christ, Mahayana tried its first wave of evangelism in Sri Lanka but it was strongly opposed and was suppressed by its rival, the Mahavihara School which saw itself to be the sole guardian and defender of Theravada Buddhism. The Lankavatarasutra, one of the very important Mahayanist sutras is said to be written in Sri Lanka but it did not find its relevance there. Keeping in mind the historical opposition of the Theravada Buddhists to Mahayanist teachings, it is not beyond one’s understanding ‘why’ the Dalai Lama’s preaching tours and initiations would not be welcomed in present day Theravada Buddhist countries notably in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma, the hubs of Theravada orthodoxy. If you were to attribute the Dalai Lama’s popularity to his teachings, then surely he cannot be popular among the Theravada Buddhists because his kind of teaching of Buddhist doctrines, initiations and rituals are not accommodated in the shoe of the Theravada orthodoxy.

Culturally and geographically, huge differences exist in countries where Mahayana found its accommodation to countries where Theravada orthodoxy exists. Being itself very accommodating, the Mahayana changed and adopted its doctrines and particularly that of the Vinaya (rules guiding monks and nuns) to suit its particular cultural and geographical contexts. This has led to distinct differences in the way Theravada, Mahayana and Tibetan monks and nuns dress, behave and do chanting for example. Though outer appearance is never what one internally is, this can have a huge effect in a cultural context. For example, though Buddhists of Mahayana background may happily and comfortably don the Theravada monastic robe without much cultural hassles, the Buddhists with a Theravada background would find it extremely difficult to don Mahayana monastic robes to live in their native lands of Theravada orthodoxy. This is probably why you can not find a single native/local Mahayana monk in traditional Theravada countries whereas it is not that difficult to find local Theravada monks in traditional Mahayana countries. Now if the Dalai Lama is having local monk and lay disciples and followers in Theravada countries as he is having in the West, then surely there is no reason not to think why he wouldn’t be a heartthrob in the Theravada world as well. Worse still, given his accommodating nature and international adaptations, the Dalai Lama sees no cultural and even religious taboos in shaking hands and holding hands with women, worshipping lay people he meets in front, wearing hi-fi lay boots, wrist watch and the like. But these very things the Dalai Lama does in public are extremely important cultural and religious taboos a monk is prohibited to do in Theravada Buddhist countries. Knowing that in Thailand it is a cultural taboo for a monk to accept anything directly from a woman’s hands, a foreigner might not even imagine well enough how a Thai Buddhist would feel seeing the Dalai Lama (announced to be a monk) on TV screen walking holding hand in hand with a woman! Much more so when an average Theravada Buddhist sees the Dalai Lama (a Buddha?!) worshipping a group of western strangers! These are some of the cultural shocks which the Theravada orthodoxy would not be willing to compromise to accommodate in their cultural and religious contexts; and this is one of the very important factors why the Dalai Lama isn’t and cannot be a heartthrob for the Theravada Buddhist world.

The political role the Dalai Lama plays as ‘a simple Buddhist monk’ (a self definition often referred to by the Dalai Lama himself) is perhaps the highest level obstacle why he isn’t a heartthrob in the Theravada Buddhist world. The fact that the Dalai Lama plays a dual role of a politician and ‘a simple Buddhist monk’ makes it extremely difficult for a Theravada Buddhist to determine whether he is preaching ‘politics’ or ‘Buddhism’. When the Dalai Lama speaks, the question is: is he speaking as a politician or is he speaking as a simple Buddhist monk? The answer is complex to determine indeed but if he is speaking as ‘both’ then that would be a complete bizarre because ‘religion’ and ‘state’ are two separate things, a policy strictly followed in the Theravada Buddhist world. But however, given the extensive publicity of his political involvement in the Tibet issue as a temporal head, he becomes a politician in the eyes of the Theravada Buddhists. To make the matter worse, China has been carrying out a media and diplomatic propaganda against the Dalai Lama branding him as ‘a separatist’, ‘a cunning politician (using religion as a cover)’, ‘a wolf disguised as a monk’ (political titles conferred and added to the already long list of religious titles of the Dalai Lama by China) so on so forth. The fact that China has immense political influence in South and Southeast Asia makes this propaganda extremely successful because whenever the Dalai Lama arranges a pilgrimage to Buddhist holy places in the Theravada Buddhist world, communist China steps in. No matter how genuine is his wish to visit such pilgrimage sites as ‘a simple Buddhist monk’, the Buddhists in those countries are made to believe that he is a politician and should not be allowed into the country in question for fear of angering giant friend – China. The recent news of Sri Lanka vetoing a proposed visit to the country by the Dalai Lama is an example. The Sri Lankan monks were criticized by critiques for not rallying in support of the proposed visit by the world’s most well known Buddhist monk in their Buddhist country. But obviously, in a war torn country where monks rally in support of government struggle to defeat what they term as Tamil ‘separatism’, it was practically not welcoming for the monks there to see a monk politician (i.e. the Dalai Lama) who has been fighting for that same purpose albeit with a different terminology used – ‘cultural genocide’ (term used by the Dalai Lama). In fact, Sri Lankan monks opposed his proposed visit for comments made by him earlier urging the Sri Lankan Buddhist government to exercise restraint in the final phase of the Tamil issue while failing to comment on the Tamil Tigers suicide missions on innocent civilians. Likewise, the Dalai Lama is most unlikely to get to visit any other Theravada country such-as Thailand or Burma because a visit by such a controversial politician-cum-monk personality is simply unwelcomed by the people there, so to speak.

Considering the above, we can safely assume that the people and the governments in Theravada Buddhist countries simply avoid effective contact and communication with the Dalai Lama either because they don’t want to cut their own legs (by angering China) or because he is no need for them, be it religious or be it political purposes. Or it can be both.

Now the answer to your question would be incomplete if the Monk doesn’t answer the question: why is the Dalai Lama a heartthrob for the West?

Perhaps you should know that the Dalai Lama is ‘world’s most well known Buddhist monk’ (leveled by the Western Media) not because he is ‘a simple Buddhist monk’ but because he is a politician as well who is at war with China, a giant state with rapid economic and military buildup (the Dalai Lama himself attributed his international popularity for his political involvement with China). Some Western people needed the Dalai Lama to meet their genuine spiritual quest for inner peace; and with his openness and broadmindedness, the Dalai Lama succeeded in attracting a large western converts and followers including some well known celebrities, an Buddhist achievement every Buddhist must be proud of but the most conspicuous urgency for the longsighted West was to find a card to play against the ever growing China. And the Dalai Lama is the perfect card for them. Believe it or not, there are other Buddhist monks who can be equal to the Dalai Lama in aspect of wisdom and compassion but they are not well known beyond their respective followers because they don’t play politics in the world’s arena. If you have noticed one thing carefully, you would have noticed that the Western media is keener on the Dalai Lama’s attacks on China than his actual words on Buddhism. Weeks of teaching to a group of monks and nuns by the Dalai Lama would not get media publicity but a single word falling off his mouth directed towards China would be picked up by the western media with no much delay. If he said ten sentences on Buddhism and one sentence on China, what would get media attention is that one sentence attacking China. This is a fact. If you think the Monk is exaggerating, then browse at the Western media coverages and see yourself how many actual words on Buddhism you can find other than columns after columns elaborating on the kind of accusations the Dalai Lama is quoted to have made against China. It is not the western people who actually go crazy about the Dalai Lama (apparently because of his ‘Buddhist’ teachings); it is the Western media (with no apparent interest on Buddhism) who crazes the Western people. After all, remember the philosophy of mass media: publicity stunt and news sensationalisation.

The Western media sensationalizes things by calling the Dalai Lama with names and titles even they are not familiar with. ‘Buddhist leader’, ‘Buddhist pope’ and even the very media introduction of him as ‘the most well known Buddhist monk’ seems for non-Buddhists as if the Dalai Lama is ‘THE BUDDHIST POPE’, an idea which is completely ridiculous and incongruous by average Buddhist standard. Though the Dalai Lama has come to be known as the Tibetan Buddhist leader, representing perhaps only 10-15% of Buddhists of the world, strictly speaking, he is not even a leader of any of the four Buddhist sects of Tibetan Buddhism but he is the Tibetan Buddhist leader by his virtue of being the temporal head of Tibetan people. This is something the Western media misses out.

got any question for the Monk? write to askthemonk@hotmail.com

THE MONK ANSWERS ANNA !

Dear Monk,

Would you be kind enough to answer my following questions?

1. I’d love to know the vows a monk takes. I’m not sure if they are secret though? I know they are many and would love to know each one!
2. Do all monks want to become monks when they start out? Is it mainly a parent’s decision - do children naturally not question parents’ decisions...many questions in this one!?
3. In Tibetan Buddhism, some monks are identified at a young age as re-incarnations of great teachers (i.e. The Dalai Lama) - is this common amongst all the Buddhist traditions?
4. Some monks use begging bowls - how prevalent is this? If it is still practiced what is the feeling/understanding/sense (I’m not referring to the thinking behind it - but the actual experience of the individual) - I’d imagine this too would vary from individual to individual.
5. How many monks have teachers in the sense of a Guru? I would love to know something about such a relationship - especially in the context of a monastery where there are many students. And this gives rise to something I heard recently - when we have teachers we connect with - the likelihood is high that there was a connection in a previous life. Is this seen to be the case?

Anna

Dear Anna,

First of all, the Monk didn’t receive your questions directly from you. Someone (name withdrawn) has forwarded them to the Monk’s email account. However the Monk would like to extend credits to the original person who asked these questions and that is ‘you’ mainly because he also personally finds these questions interesting. Second of all, the Monk received a total of eleven questions (apparently all from you), but the Monk has decided to answer only five – the questions that entail greater importance. Please keep in mind that the Monk’s views would mostly reflect the standpoint of Theravada Buddhism – the form of Buddhism unanimously regarded by all Buddhist traditions as the ‘earliest’, if not the original, form of Buddhism. There can be certainly other approaches to these questions, sometimes may be completely contradictory but that is the beauty of Buddhism. Hereby the Monk tries to answer them in order:

1. I’d love to know the vows a monk takes. I’m not sure if they are secret though? I know they are many and would love to know each one!

To begin with, your doubt is right: ‘vows’ (the term you used) a monk takes are secret in the sense that they are not really supposed to be ‘recited’ in front of or together with lay people and novice monks (note that novice monks are also left out). A novice monk is also left out because he is not a full fledged monk (a full fledged monk must be at least 20 years old). A novice takes only 10 precepts or vows, if you like (google ‘The Buddhist Ten Precepts’ and you would get them). Elsewhere, the Buddha is recorded to have said that a person, lay or monk, should be ‘vinayo ca susikkhito’, a phrase which means one needs to be ‘well educated of the Vinaya’ (vinaya being the ‘vows’!!!). But unfortunately later generations of orthodox monks altered the understanding of this phrase and stated that ‘vinaya’ has two types – one for monastic monks and the other for lay (the Monk won’t mention the lay vows here because that wasn’t a part of your question). So, according to the reading of those orthodox monks, a lay should not bother with the ‘monastic vows’ whereas a monk is free to learn and preach the lay vows. But that does not prevent anyone from knowing what the monastic vows are, so to speak. Today is an open world; nothing can be hidden. Esoteric teaching is strictly supposed to be not revealed to general people but today even a school child can read a book on esoteric Buddhism in a library or on a click of a mouse! Anyway, carefully note the above paraphrase used ‘not…to…be…recited’. Verily, ‘not to be recited’ is different from ‘not…to…be…known’. This means monastic vows, as it were, can be known by anyone anywhere including you (as a matter of fact, in traditional monastic institutions, you cannot find a lay teacher teaching a class on the Monastic ‘vows’, no matter how competent he is). Before proceeding further on, the Monk would like to make a point here. The term ‘vow’ is not used by all Buddhist traditions (for convenience sake, know that academically Buddhism is popularly divided into two: Southern and Northern. The former refer to Theravada Buddhism found in South and Southeast Asia and the latter refers to Mahayana including Tibetan Buddhism found in the Northeast and Himalayan regions). Vow is popularly used by Northern Buddhism. The Southern Buddhism uses the term ‘sikkhapada’ which is a prakrit-pali word meaning ‘training factor’. Now it would depend on how one understands these two terms ‘vow’ and ‘training factor’ (the Monk would like to evade this issue). Generally, the Buddhist Bible (used here for familiarization) consists of three divisions, one of which is called ‘The Book of Monastic Discipline’ (the word used for that is ‘vinaya’). This Vinaya text contains some of the earliest monastic injunctions laid down by the historic Buddha himself and are commonly accepted by all the Buddhist traditions. The ‘Dos and Don’ts’ containing in this Vinaya text are the primary ‘vows’ (to use your term again) that a monk takes at the time of his ordination. As far as the Monk is aware, the term ‘vow’ is broader which includes aspirations and vows of other superior beings called bodhisattvas, other than the historic Buddha. Since it would take pages after pages to list and explain all the vows, some of which seem mystical and fairy tales, the Monk would only limit the discussion to the primary text mentioned above, the text where historic Buddha’s injunctions are listed. You might call them whatever you like – vows, training factors, disciplinary rules, commandments or injunctions but their relevance and purpose remains the same. The Vinaya text contains a total of 227 monastic vows or rather training factors (strictly speaking only 220, the other seven being just ‘ways of settling down monastic disputes’) which a newly baptized monk ‘undertakes to abide by’ as long as he remains a monk. Note the flexibility of the initiation process: ‘undertakes to abide by’. It is not so much as implanting these 227 vinaya rules into the sub-consciousness of the newly baptized monk. This is the very reason why the Monk finds it uncomfortable to use the term ‘vows’ because vows are more of like ‘implanting’ into someone’s sub-consciousness. The Monk prefers not to go into each of the 227 vinaya rules here as you wanted, not because they contain something very secret but because majority of them are simply manners and behavioral patterns like ‘not eating like a pig (pig is added by the Monk to refer to the ‘eating’ making lots of sound with the mouth)’, ‘not entering the living quarter of a lay person without prior notice (apparently to avoid embarrassment to the person if he is on the bed with someone)’, ‘nor urinating standing’ (but monks find it difficult to abide by this simple but troublesome rule; so, many monks just release themselves standing), ‘not to give blows to fellow monks’, ‘not to travel alone with a woman (for obvious reason)’…the list go on. These are many of the minor rules, the breach of which can be got away lightly. But there are four very serious rules any monk cannot break under any circumstances. By ‘very serious’ the Monk means any monk found guilty of these four rules or vows is to be expelled from the Monastic Community. Such a monk is termed as ‘defeated’ and he can no longer become a full fledged monk in this entire life. Such a ‘defeated’ monk is compared to a fallen leaf which cannot be placed back to its original place, or the chopped off head of a man who cannot be revived. These four serious vows are (the Monk is putting them in positive sequence, which means if a monk does any one of them he is defeated):

1. to have sex (commentary: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, lesbian, oral, anal sexual activities with humans or animals are to be avoided)
2. to steal (commentary: taking what is not given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness) – this is the most complex rule in the Vinaya text to define its execution exactly
3. to kill a human being (commentary: deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die) and
4. to falsely claim sainthood.

Different traditions may prescribe different set of vows but these are the four primary vows that monks of all traditions undertake to abide by as long they remain as monks.

There are further twelve second most serious vinaya vows, the breach of which entails, not expulsion, but congregational confession and probation. Interesting of them are ‘intentional emission of semen via masturbation’, ‘seductive bodily contact with a female’, ‘flirting with a woman’, ‘back biting’, ‘making schism in the monastic community’ and so on.

Please log on to www.accesstoinsight.org (stroll down the section titled ‘Vinaya Pitaka’) for more details and the complete list of the 227 ‘vows’ you want to know. The Monk would like to end this answer here because at the click of a mouse, you can find a better answer than this. If you are lazy (for lack of a better term) or have no time to find it out yourself, do let the Monk know; he will just copy and paste them here or you.

But let the Monk elaborate a bit on the practical aspect of these vows. At the early part of Buddha’s teaching career, there was no smell of these 227 rules. Apparently it was a custom of the Buddha to gather his monks once a fortnight and recite a single verse to remind them of their purpose of becoming monks: ‘do no evil, do skilful, purify your mind – this is the teaching of all Buddhas’. This original verse later gave rise to the present 227 rules because of misconduct of monks. Today, the traditional recitation of these 227 vows once a fortnight by the monastic community (belonging to the Southern tradition) still exists particularly in the forest tradition whose monks adhere to more ascetic like practices. And this kind of official recitation is the one that is secret, the term used at the beginning. Practically, apart from the four serious vows, many of the other rules are out of date – they hardly fit into the 21st century world. The Monk personally thinks that vows like – ‘not doing job, not handling money, not driving, no entertainment’ etc. etc. don’t just fit into the modern world. Yes, it is true that a monk is supposed to renounce every such worldly affair but the other side of the truth is to ask the question: is it really possible for a city monk to survive without handling money, for example? Analyzing the flexibility of Buddhist teachings of wisdom and compassion (apart from disciplinary vows), it would certainly be foolish for lay Buddhists to demand that all monks live in the forest like bats and owls and never come out to mingle with worldly affairs. The Monk believes this was a historic dilemma for the monks themselves too. To keep a balance therefore, the monks were wise and receptive enough to divide the Monastic Community into two groups: forest and town. Probably this is what made Buddhism survive till today. If you are in need of a long forest retreat, go to the forest monks. They are the qualified monks to help you achieve inner peace and harmony. But if you want to stir up your brains, then you should meet academic town monks who are highly qualified to confuse you with all kinds of complicated Buddhist philosophies and puzzles. But what is now interesting is that often a forest monk blames and criticizes a city monk accusing him of ‘only talking’ whereas Buddha’s teaching is all about ‘practicing’. The city monk also does not keep quiet. He is also always ready to blame the forest monks for ‘neglecting’ the welfare of the general people who need spiritual help, guidance and answers to their worldly problems. The debate goes on but to jump into its conclusion, it would not be wrong to say that both sides have monks stupid enough to blame and criticize the other side when in actual sense, both the sides are needed for the longevity of Buddhism.

2. Do all monks want to become monks when they start out? Is it mainly a parent’s decision - do children naturally not question parents’ decisions...many questions in this one!?

If you have known that children as little as four years old are baptized as Buddhist monks, you might not have asked whether children questioned their parents’ decision or not, because obviously such a little child would have no rational maturity to question like that, though of course he will be there to cry when his parents leave him behind in the temple cells (the Monk himself cried when he was left behind…). Perhaps, and it is true that when they become older, some of them might question their parents’ decision and might even accuse them of dumping them into a different world. Here is such a case: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/17/content_8294870.htm. Though the Monk has answered a similar question in a previous blog post ‘10 Qs for a monk’, let the Monk touch this point a bit differently. Though it is a requirement to get parents’ consent before becoming a monk, parents don’t always play the major role particularly if the boy or the man in question decides to be a monk himself. But by looking at the family and social backgrounds of majority of monks in traditional Buddhist countries, the Monk believes that if they were given another option in life, they would have certainly avoided the option of becoming monks. For example, it is uncommon to see the children of rich families becoming monks because they have other options to crave for. Younger children of economically weak families may, sometimes, be forced by parents or simply by family economic situations to join the monastic community because it would provide them with food and most importantly a better opportunity for education. Such children, as time passed by, may get used to the lifestyle of a monk. If the senior monks somehow manage to brainwash (for lack of a better word) them, then such children may continue their lives as monks till the end. But unfortunately, statistics show that majority of them disrobe once they finish their education and are sure to get some sort of employment. Despite the high rate of disrobing, the Monastic Communities in different Buddhist countries remain filled mainly because ‘incoming’ is equal to the ‘outgoing’ rate. Hence, nowadays monasteries and temples have turned out to be kind of temporary shelters for the poor to stand up in societies. It is also very natural that such younger novice monks may prefer a monastic life to the kind of life they might have led, which would have been mostly consisted of looking after buffaloes, working in the fields, looking after younger siblings and the like. Initially they might resist, but once they manage to cross a few weeks in monkhood, they are most likely to be attracted by the kind of respect, care and good facilities they are provided with in the monasteries by temple devotees. But as they grow, their needs also grow – differently.

Some other such children might not have liked their parents leaving them behind in temple cells but as they grow, they might start taking life seriously, learning Buddhist doctrines and meditating which then would prepare them for a bright future as Monastic heads, temple abbots and high ranking monks – positions many monks can dream of.

But obviously the situation in economically developed countries is a total contrast. In such countries like Korea and Japan, it is not very common to find large number of children spending their playful days as monks studying books written hundreds of years ago. Monks (mostly in their 20s) from such countries including Europe and America are most likely to have entered monkhood through their sheer will and plan. And majority of such monks are to be found in meditation centers and retreats or in academic monastic institutions because that is the very purpose of their becoming monks. Unfortunately, believe it or not, such monks are also most likely to be fame-conscious. After spending few months learning and practicing meditation, they might declare themselves as so-called ‘meditation masters’ – a very serious trend that needs to be checked out by the Western monks themselves. Not only monks, even Western so-called Buddhists have distorted Buddhism by writing books on Buddhism after attending few classes on Buddhism. Their intention must have been for the good but the result has done more harm than good. Therefore, the Monk’s request to such people is: please don’t try to take our positions in the name of helping us propagate Buddhism. You have as much to learn from us Asians as we have to learn from you Westerners. No doubt, you people are more intelligent, more scientific so to speak but our long years of monastic studies, training, practice, faithfulness and familiarity with our Buddhist cultures and traditions should not be taken as mere empty seashells.

[An interesting reference for this particular answer would be the small book entitled ‘‘Little Angels’’ by Phra Peter Pannapadipo (an English Theravada monk in Thailand). It’s a handy booklet which records a dozen of emotional, heart-rending and educative life stories of little novices in Thailand. The book was published in the UK by Arrow Books in 2005. The monk is having a scanned copy of the book. Anybody wanting a copy for personal reading can contact the monk. Fore warned: the book carries copyright. Take your own risk]


3. In Tibetan Buddhism, some monks are identified at a young age as re-incarnations of great teachers (i.e. The Dalai Lama) - is this common amongst all the Buddhist traditions?

If a direct answer serves your question right, then it would be ‘NO’. Even the very idea of reincarnation is not found particularly in the Scriptures of the Southern tradition. Though justifications and rationalizations can be put forward in support of the concept of reincarnation as an authentic Buddhist concept, it was merely a later invention – a concept originating in Tibet hundreds of years after the demise of the historic Buddha in India. Such a concept is also not to be found in the Chinese Buddhist tradition. Refer to the lineage of Chan (Zen) patriarchs in China, which was very much similar to the Dalai Lama lineage but historically the succeeding Chan patriarch was chosen by the preceding patriarch which continued until the 6th greatest of all patriarchs – Master Hui Neng. Surely they could have also incorporated such a reincarnation concept into the hierarchy of the patriarchs but they must have seemingly avoided introducing such a new concept, probably because it would raise more serious questions regarding the fundamental Buddhist tenets of impermanence and soullessness than answer the very question of rebirth. The Monk personally finds it ridiculous to accept the concept of reincarnation in support of rebirth. People have been fascinated and simply started accepting the belief in rebirths as true because the Dalai Lama, a living Buddha, the so-called bodhisattva of compassion reincarnates! Certainly this is not ‘why’ we believe in rebirths (the Monk would not go into the discussion of rebirths here because it is not a part of the original question). However, honestly the Monk has no idea what and how the Tibetan Buddhists explain ‘reincarnation‘without undermining the fundamental Buddhist tenets of impermanence and soullessness. But the Dalai Lama’s personal admission that some of the previous Dalai Lamas were wrongly recognized indicates that perhaps the Tibetan concept of ‘reincarnation’ has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted as ‘the same Dalai Lama coming again and again’. Further evidence in support of this hypothesis is the recent incident of an Irish boy, being recognized by high ranking Lamas including the Dalai Lama himself as a reincarnated Lama, disrobed and started blaming the Buddhists for making him undergo the ordeal of nightmares living in dark cells of monasteries secluded away from the outside world http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/17/content_8294870.htm Anyway, your very question that some monks are identified at a young age as reincarnations of GREAT TEACHERS (the emphasis belongs to the Monk) is not consistent with history because, to say the least, not all Dalai Lamas have been great! The last point is the Monk strongly believes that any normal child could be trained to be like the Dalai Lama if he is also given the kind of training, teaching and facilities as are due to the training of a Dalai Lama or any other such so-called incarnated souls.

The idea of searching for reincarnations of ‘enlightened beings’ (Tibetan incarnated Lamas are considered as enlightened beings) has no support from, at least, the Southern Buddhist Scriptures. A southern Buddhist may find it ridiculous to go after this idea because it is an undeniable recording that the historic Buddha (here the Monk is not talking about mystic bodhisattvas, beings Tibetans respect more) has categorically defined ‘enlightenment’ as ‘cut off is the chain of re-becoming, done what has to be done and there is no further births’. According to this reckoning, an ‘enlightened being’ has no more ‘re-becomings’! Note the term used – ‘re-becoming’ rather than the term ‘reincarnation’. The problem of reincarnation seems to the Monk like the problem of ‘egg<>chicken’ (the egg comes out of the chicken or the chicken comes out of the egg) while the issue of re-becoming is more like the question of milk<>curd<>butter<>ghee. The fundamental issue of Buddhist rebirths is to ask whether the present state of ghee is the same as the original state of milk or different from it; and this is to ask the same question ‘Is the present Dalai Lama the same as the previous Dalai Lama or will the future Dalai Lama be the same as the present Dalai Lama’. The right answer to this problem has been clearly spelt out in the Buddhist Scriptures as ‘neither-nor’ relationship. If the issue of the ‘Dalai Lama reincarnation’ is to be looked at from this angle, then the Monk is willing to accept the idea of reincarnation as essentially that of Buddhist rebirth. Yet, the question still remains as to whether such a reincarnated individual (i.e. the Dalai Lama) is indeed ‘enlightened’ or not, because ‘enlightenment’ in the sense of what the southern Buddhists understand is ‘no rebirths’. However, if the idea of great compassion is inserted to justify the rebirths of enlightened beings such-as the Dalai Lama, the bodhisattva of compassion, then the Monk thinks the greatest of all ‘reincarnations’ would be that of the historic Sakyamuni Buddha’s. But obviously, the reincarnation of the historic Buddha is out of the question. Does it, then, mean to say that the present Dalai Lama is more compassionate than the historic Buddha??? Perhaps, the Dalai Lama can answer this question better than the Monk.

4. Some monks use begging bowls - how prevalent is this? If it is still practiced what is the feeling/understanding/sense (I’m not referring to the thinking behind it - but the actual experience of the individual) - I’d imagine this too would vary from individual to individual.

A begging bowl is one of the prerequisites for a monk at the time of his ordination. A newly baptized monk is instructed on the four serious vows (mentioned in Q. no.1) and on four supports which includes ‘begging one’s own food with a bowl’, ‘wearing rag-robes’, ‘living under a tree’ and ‘using fermented urine as medicine’. Do you think these four supports are austere enough for a monk?! Well, they are as austere as hell. But don’t get the impression that every monk you see now follows them, certainly not THE MONK you are meeting online. Obliviously, a monk going begging with a bowl wearing rag-clothes in European cities would get arrested under vagrancy laws; a monk living in NYC cannot possibly find a tree to sleep under!; and a monk drinking his own urine for medical purposes while living in towns (where hospitals are available) sounds stupid (though Mahatma Gandhi is supposed to have drunk his own urine to stay healthy!!!). These so-called four supports are to be looked at from practical point of view; not simply following them just because one is a monk. But to the Buddhist credit, the group of forest monks (based in Asian Buddhist countries), mentioned in the answer to the first question above, does still, more or less, keep to these four supports. But to specify your question of the ‘bowl’; the percentage of monks (both forest and town) using a bowl to take one’s food in stationed monasteries (rather than begging with it) is comparatively higher than the other three supports. By the way, the age-old tradition of going public for alms round with bowls can still and only be found in Thailand and Burma (though forest monks in other Buddhist countries may also do the same). The using of bowls among Tibetan and Mahayana monks (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese) is extremely rare, not absent though. The kind of ‘feeling/understanding/sense’ a monk is supposed to derive when using a begging bowl to take his food is recorded in the Monastic Book of Discipline as follows:

"Properly considering alms food, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."

Whether an average monk does really get this sort of contemplative understanding remains to individual mind-development. But what is certain is that not every monk begs his food and eats from his bowl. But if you insist on the actual experience of the individual who eats from a begging bowl, then you got to try it yourself. A couple of actually feelings most likely would be: firstly, once a begging bowl is forced into your hands, you cannot help feeling that you are a beggar, you don’t exist as a valued person. Secondly, you can never get the real taste and enjoyment of food if you are eating from a bowl because all the stuff would be poured into your single holed-up bowl where sour, bitter, sweet, hot, spicy and cold rice and curries would get mixed up. At your first swallow, you are most likely to vomit out, especially if you are very choosy with foods (when Buddha first became a monk from a prince, he also almost vomited by just having a glimpse of the kinds of mixed up food holed up into his clay bowl; you cannot probably imagine the kind of feeling a prince would get if he was offered such mixed up food). However, the Monk thinks that the original purpose of using a bowl to beg and eat was not kind of deriving feelings from the bowl as such. The using of a bowl during the sixth century before Christ in primitive India was essentially a practical thing to do for a religious mendicant such as a Buddhist monk. A religious mendicant at the time was compared to a bird which flies anywhere easily without the burden of carrying tons of stuff. Carrying all sorts of spoons, forks, chopsticks, plates, pots, glasses, cups, jars and the like was simply not an option for a bird-like mendicant. So, the easiest and the most practical option was to carry a simple bowl that you can use to collect your food and eat to survive for the pursuit of the kind of spirituality you have become a monk for.

This particular issue of a bowl reminds the Monk of something happened decades ago. When the first group of Western monks, trained in the forest traditions in Asia, went back to the West on a preaching mission, many people there wondered whether Western people could really afford to look after these forest monks. And somebody apparently did an account to know how much it would cost to look after a single monk. Surprisingly they found out that it actually was much cheaper to look after a monk than it was to look after a dog!!! The similarity between a monk and a dog is both of them eat out of bowls in which everything is poured into. So, the logic was that every western family should have a monk at their backyards!

5. How many monks have teachers in the sense of a Guru? I would love to know something about such a relationship - especially in the context of a monastery where there are many students. And this gives rise to something I heard recently - when we have teachers we connect with - the likelihood is high that there was a connection in a previous life. Is this seen to be the case?

Well, theoretically and practically every monk has a ‘teacher’ but the Monk is not very sure what you exactly understand by the term ‘Guru’. Let the Monk quote the very word of the historic Buddha as found in the Monastic Book of Discipline:
‘‘Monks, I allow a preceptor. The preceptor will foster the attitude he would have toward a son ('son-mind') with regard to the student. The student will foster the attitude he would have toward a father ('father-mind') with regard to the preceptor. Thus they — living with mutual respect, deference, and courtesy — will arrive at growth, increase, and maturity in this Dhamma-Vinaya’’.
If you understand this statement in its intended sense regarding teacher-student or guru-disciple relationship, then you would see no possible difference between a teacher and a guru. Please keep in mind that by ‘teacher’ the Monk does not mean the kind of teacher you can find teaching geography or history in a school class. In Buddhist context, guru (used mostly in the Tibetan tradition), teacher/preceptor (used in the Theravada tradition) and/or master (used in the Chinese tradition) essentially refer to the same person.

In the Tibetan and Chinese traditions, the disciple’s absolute faith and submission to the Guru/Master is an essential part of the initiation process, so much so that in the Tibetan tradition they have four refuges – Guru, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha (note the foremost position given to the Guru). This requires the disciple to solely depend on the Guru’s mercy and guidance for his enlightenment, so to speak. Since the Tibetan initiation of guru-disciple relationship can take separate vows and promises, the Monk is not very sure how many Tibetan monks do have such connections with recognized Gurus (mostly incarnated Lamas).

The second part of your question is also not specified; the Monk is not sure whether you want to know something about teacher-student relationship in the context of a Theravada monastery, a Tibetan monastery or a Mahayana monastery, because each of these traditions has its own ways of teacher-student relationship. But for answer sake, let the monk briefly tell you a typical teacher-student relationship that goes on in the Southern monastic set-up.

In the ordination process of the Southern Buddhist tradition, a monk candidate is presented with two high ranking, competent monks of not less than ten years of monastic standing (mostly selected by the candidate himself) who would be his legal and official Upajjhaya, a term meaning ‘preceptor’ and Acariya, a term meaning ‘teacher’. The job of the preceptor is to lead the ordination ceremony and to be a guide to the newly ordained monk in matters of monastic disciplines through out his monastic life, whereas the job of the teacher is to teach the newly ordained monk the points of Buddhist doctrines and philosophies. But in actual practice, usually a single high ranking, competent and educated monk acts as both preceptor and teacher. In the Southern Buddhist tradition, the relationship between the teacher and the student may not be and does not required to be very profound and abiding because he does not depend on a single teacher for enlightenment, so to speak. Secondly, neither majority of monks do target ‘enlightenment’ nor is it common to find known and recognized enlightened teachers. Thirdly majority of monks become monks to get an education that would prepare them for a living (for want of a better term). Hence, they would depend on school and university teachers to pass exams and get certificates than on a committed guru/teacher for ‘enlightenment’. This is to say, not majority of monks do have a COMMITTED TEACHER, as the Monk puts it. If you hear a modern monk talking about his ‘teacher’, most likely he is his ‘teacher’ because that ‘teacher’ is supporting him with financial and material helps for his education just like a father spending for his son’s education. And this is the modern version of the Buddha’s statement quoted at the beginning that a teacher should be ‘father-minded’ and a student should be ‘son-minded’.
In a monastery where there are many students, not all students there are students of the head monk of that particular monastery. Different students may have different ‘teachers’ (in the sense of what has just been said); it is most likely that they are there either because it is a residential monastic educational institution or because it is a monastic hostel. But in a very rare case, a modern highly educated and rich monk may have many monk students in a single monastery mainly because he can pay for their education. The students’ relationships with the teacher may not be so much spiritual as it is for financial.

A modern well known vipassana meditation guru mostly coming out of Burma may have hundreds of students from different countries but he is only their guru/teacher so long as he leads a meditation retreat for them for a certain periods of time. The conclusion is in the Southern Buddhist tradition, an abiding committed relationship between a teacher and student for the keen pursuit of enlightenment is extremely rare.

The third part of your question is something to do with the Buddhist concept of karma. Well, it’s not only with teachers, karma is said to be an essential component of ‘why’ we have the kind of parents here and now, the kind of country we are born in to, the kinds of friends and relatives we strongly relate to, so on and so forth. It is much more so with the right kind of connection one may have with the right kind of teacher for the keen pursuit of enlightenment.

Got any question? Write to the Monk at askthemonk@hotmail.com