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