The Buddhist Peace Fellowship has recently published a letter of support for the protests and demonstrations occuring in Myanmar [1], but they fail to make any distinction between peaceful demonstrations and the unfortunate behavior of Burmese monks taking hostages and setting cars on fire --- an overt act of aggression.While we support the need for change in Myanmar and respect the goals of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, we have to call into question their judgement in not making a distinction between the two, as well as their absolute lack of objectivity in addressing the cause of the demonstrations in the first place.
In an unanswered email that I sent to Earthlyn Manuel, the executive director of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, I asked: "Has the BPF become an institution which blindly supports any action taken by Buddhist practioners? Where is the objectivity? Where is peace ever found in an act of aggression?"
Indeed, how does one achieve peace through an act of aggression? Simply, one cannot --- there is no "road to peace" except to become "peace". Beyond this, we also need to ask ourselves what is more appropriate for members of the Sangha, inciting demonstrations or intervention in and of itself alone?
Then we have what appears to be a total "disconnect" in the reasoning of some members of the Buddhist community who have attempted to justify the taking of hostages and other aggressive forms of behavior by citing an incident in the Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, where the Buddha is said to have stood in the middle of a river to stop two warring kingdoms who were about to fight over the supply of water.
I don't remember the Parinibbana Sutta mentioning any aggressive behavior by the Buddha --- it wasn't even a protest or demonstration, but intervention in and of itself. When members of the laity don't know the difference between peaceful demonstrations and aggressive behavior it is sad enough, but when this appears within the Sangha it is even a greater tragedy.
Demonstrations can bring about reform, but real reform can only exist when dialogue is pursued by all parties, not by one party attempting to intimidate the other. Demonstrations are typically the result of passion, while intervention is typically the result of compassion.
Although the Mahabodhi Maitri Mandala and the Buddhist Brotherhood Assembly in Bangladesh have been outspoken in regard to aggressive behavior by members of the Sangha [2], it appears that no one else sees the problem with it or the implications of cause and effect.
And finally we have the members of the pro-democracy movement who are taking advantage of the outcry over the higher fuel prices to advance their own political agendas, but at the same time offering no meaningful solutions.
For all intents and purposes, any governmental administration would be an improvement to what's currently in place within Myanmar, but if someone believes that removing the ruling regime will somehow solve all of the problems that face the Burmese people, then they're in for a rude awakening.
Without doubt, the economic problems and fuel prices in Myanmar are related to mismanagement by the State Peace and Development Council, but no one is looking at the cause of it or the realities that would have to be faced by any government, democratic or otherwise.
These matters were brought up by Dr. Alfred Oehlers, a respected security analyst of Asian-Pacific studies [3]:
First, most of the gas contracts were negotiated some time ago and probably have much lower locked-in prices than those prevailing today. These lower gas prices cannot compensate for the higher spot prices for diesel.
Second, revenues are not always obtained in such sales. Sources indicate that the deal with Petronas, for example, involves the SPDC bartering its share of gas production for diesel from the Malaysian company on pre-agreed terms, without any money being exchanged.
Third, it should also be remembered that though revenues may be obtained from gas sales, expenditure on refined gas products are a drain on such income and can diminish what is available for diesel imports. It is a great irony that while Burma sells unrefined natural gas to neighboring countries, due to lack of capacity to purify such gas domestically, it must import refined gas products at substantially higher prices.
What we have currently is a conjuncture of these structural characteristics and circumstances that make it impossible to sustain subsidies at the previous level. Rising imports of diesel, gasoline and gas products at escalating prices cannot be paid for from existing gas revenues.
Nor can an already weak state budget, depleted by projects such as a new capital, absorb such rising costs.
The only solution is to slash the subsidies and raise fuel prices.
Does this excuse the ongoing repression by the State Peace and Development Council? No, but there isn't any excuse for the lack of objectivity either, especially when addressing the issues that caused the price hikes in the first place. It is always easier to look for a scapegoat than it is to find a solution.
Taking into account the realities that face Myanmar and it's growing dependency on diesel imports, who will the Burmese blame after the current regime is gone?
What happens when the economy gets even worse than it already is?
If history is any indicator, we can expect to see not only more suffering, but also the decline of the institutionalized Sangha in Myanmar if it cannot distinguish the difference between peaceful demonstration and aggressive behavior.
Within the Buddhist tradition, one does not fight aggression with aggression, no sooner than one fights fire with fire --- one fights aggression through open dialogue and compassionate intervention in total equanimity, even after one has been abused or mistreated.
One needs to look no further than the Dhammapada for confirmation: "He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me --- in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease."
Just as the Dhammapada goes on to say that hatred does not cease with hatred, the same can be said when dealing with aggression, that aggression does not cease with aggression, but that it only creates more suffering and hostility.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce