Are The Actions Of The Burmese Monks In Line With The Buddhas Teachings ?

[Plus]

... by protesting they are expressing a desire for political change.

Here we go again. You can't find any evidence of this "desire for political change", can you?

Generals were facing mounting street protests with growing international support. No matter what the monks were asking for, it had to stop.

[chownah]

... by protesting they are expressing a desire for political change.

Here we go again. You can't find any evidence of this "desire for political change", can you?

Generals were facing mounting street protests with growing international support. No matter what the monks were asking for, it had to stop.

Do you think that a monk having a desire for political change is against the Buddha's teachings? Can you give a scriptural reference to support this?

Your comments about the Generals is off topic. It has nothing to do with whether the monks' actions are in accordance with the Buddha's teachings or not.

This is the Buddhist forum and we are supposed to be discussing Buddhism and related issues. Your comments don't seem to have anything to do with Buddhist issues....it seems to be about political issues. This is not a political discussion forum and even more specifically the topic of this thread is about monks' behavior and whether it is in line with the Buddha's teachings....please try to stay relevant.

If you want to discuss the politics in Burma then please either find an appropriate thread or start one yourself but please don't continue with your off-topic political comments.

Chownah

[seonai]

Seconded Chownah - from a personal and a moderation point of view. Plus has continually tried to sabotage this thread and I have been extremely polite to him.

[camerata]

Are the actions of the Burmese monks in line with the Buddhas teachings ?

any comments ?

The way I see it is the original goal for monks was nibbana. The original obligation of the Sangha towards the laity that supported it - as set out by the Buddha - was (1) to be the living proof of enlightenment, (2) to be an example of virtuous living and (3) to teach the Dhamma. Acting as priests, ministering to the laity or getting involved in their worldly affairs wasn't part of their function. So, regardless of Vinaya rules, I think the Burmese monks are at best ignoring their proper function as depicted in the Pali Canon.

As one would expect, the monks are pretty unworldly. They were going to refuse alms from the junta and as a result the junta was supposed to lose legitimacy (what legitimacy?) in the eyes of the people. Yet look how easy it was for the junta to prevent the people from giving alms to monks and therefore starve them (the monks) into submission. In no time at all the monasteries were accepting supplies from the junta. That alone should be a lesson that it isn't wise to play politics - even peaceful politics - with the military.

[Plus]

Seconded Chownah - from a personal and a moderation point of view. Plus has continually tried to sabotage this thread and I have been extremely polite to him.

Sorry if you misunderstood. My point is that I don't see any political actions on the part of monks. There's no evidence (so far) that they had made any political demands at all. Generals response as a possible evidence has been brought in by Pete_r, not by me.

If you want to discuss the imaginary situation where the monks campaigned for junta's overthrow, go ahead, but be clear about it. "Would it be in line with Buddha's teachings if...?"

Then in would look more like a search for justification for involving monks into revolutions, but I will not try to sabotage your hypothetical ponderings.

>>>>

Refusing to accept alms from individual soldiers is a controversial decision. They are just doing their jobs, trying to feed their families.

[seonai]

I have said all along that the monks were walking for 'change' and that I agree that they should have done this as it has raised the world's attention to the matter. I personally don't think it is relevant to discuss whether it was an action in line with the Buddha's teachings as many of the monks rules are out of date and I believe these particular monks see their country's people in a desperate situation, therefore an act which appears 'desperate' was necessary

[Brucenkhamen]

I have said all along that the monks were walking for 'change' and that I agree that they should have done this as it has raised the world's attention to the matter. I personally don't think it is relevant to discuss whether it was an action in line with the Buddha's teachings as many of the monks rules are out of date and I believe these particular monks see their country's people in a desperate situation, therefore an act which appears 'desperate' was necessary

Well said.

[seonai]

Thanks Brucen, the situation in Burma is at a crucial stage and the monks have helped bring it to world attention. It is imperative that this issue is kept in the media etc so that one day, change will happen for these opressed people

[chownah]

I personally don't think it is relevant to discuss whether it was an action in line with the Buddha's teachings as many of the monks rules are out of date and I believe these particular monks see their country's people in a desperate situation, therefore an act which appears 'desperate' was necessary

Seonai,

It sounds like you are saying that the Buddha's teachings are irrelevant for suffering people. This seems strange to me because it is exactly suffering people that the Buddha addressed with his teachings.

Chownah

[phibunmike]

Did you know that the Buddha compiled a long long list of rules for monks to follow (more than 200 rules) and was quite explicit on what was acceptable behavior and what was not?

Chownah

Chownah,

Do you happen to know if that list is available (in English) on the internet?

Thanks,

Mike

Edit> I'm guessing the answer is "no", or you probably would have put a link....

The rules are indeed available in English and sorry that I was too lazy to give one before and since you requested it here is a link which I think is a good one:

The Bhikkhus' Rules

A Guide for Laypeople

The Theravadin Buddhist Monk's Rules

compiled and explained by

Bhikkhu Ariyesako

Which can be found at:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...ide.html#vinaya

Chownah

P.S. I'm not very knowledgeable on the monk's rules but just to give people the flavor of some of these, here is an excerpt talking about how a monk should behave when in public:

"When in inhabited areas, I will... wear the under and upper robe properly; be properly covered; go well restrained as to my movements; keep my eyes looking down; sit with little sound [of voice]."

"When in inhabited areas, I will not... hitch up my robes; go or sit laughing loudly; go or sit fidgeting; swing my arms; shake my head; put my arms akimbo; cover my head with a cloth; walk on tiptoe; sit clasping the knees." (See BMC pp. 490-494)"

Chownah

P.P.S. Just so that people understand where I'm coming from....I don't really care what monks do....my view is that it is up to them to decide what to do. My focus on these rules is just to help to provide a meaningful discussion of the original question of this thread which is whether the monks' behaviour in Burma during the demonstrations was according to the Buddha's teaching or not.

Chownah

Thanks Chownah and Camerata for that link. Chownah I agree with you (FWIIW), it is possible to discuss compliance with Buddhist teaching without knowing the minds of the monks involved, by simply discussing either basic interpretation of their motives that have been hypothesized.

Cheers,

Mike

[Brucenkhamen]

It sounds like you are saying that the Buddha's teachings are irrelevant for suffering people. This seems strange to me because it is exactly suffering people that the Buddha addressed with his teachings.

The Buddhas teachings are about gaining freedom from suffering, the monks rules are an aid for monks to make that happen.

As a country Burma is saturated in the Buddhas teaching. The thing is I don't believe the Buddha laid down these rules so a nation of some of his most devout followers would get stuck with over 60 years of brutal military dictatorship.

[phibunmike]

Do you think that a monk having a desire for political change is against the Buddha's teachings? Can you give a scriptural reference to support this?

The link you provided is very interesting, thank you.

Any "desire" seems to be unwelcome, but perhaps that is overly simplistic. For example, a desire to follow the precepts cannot be wrong.

One part of the "rules" relevant to the current topic seems to be this one:

The very serious Sa"nghaadisesa Rule (requiring formal meetings of the Community) of 'corrupting families'116 concerns the proper relationship that bhikkhus should develop with lay followers.

:

:

A bhikkhu's wrong mode of livelihood also includes:

"running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state, householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in political campaigns." (BMC p.152)

What do you think of the application of this rule?

[sabaijai]

I have said all along that the monks were walking for 'change' and that I agree that they should have done this as it has raised the world's attention to the matter. I personally don't think it is relevant to discuss whether it was an action in line with the Buddha's teachings as many of the monks rules are out of date and I believe these particular monks see their country's people in a desperate situation, therefore an act which appears 'desperate' was necessary

Then perhaps another thread is needed, as this thread concerns whether or not the actions of the Burmese monks were in line with the Buddha's teachings. There is already a SE Asia subforum on this forum where current Burmese politics is being discussed.

Refusing to accept alms from individual soldiers is a controversial decision.

From what I know of the Vinaya, it may be an infraction for a monk to select whom he will accept alms from.

Many Theravadins would disagree that the rules are out of date, by the way.

[seonai]

I quoted that 'many' of the monks rules are out of date directly from a prominent 'farang' Theravadin monk Sabai He explained to me that lots of them do not apply to modern life and other Thai monks have told me the same

I maybe worded my comment badly but I just mean that I have so much compassion for all the people in Burma that I don't think it is worth worrying about the rules in this case

[chownah]

Do you think that a monk having a desire for political change is against the Buddha's teachings? Can you give a scriptural reference to support this?

The link you provided is very interesting, thank you.

Any "desire" seems to be unwelcome, but perhaps that is overly simplistic. For example, a desire to follow the precepts cannot be wrong.

One part of the "rules" relevant to the current topic seems to be this one:

The very serious Sa"nghaadisesa Rule (requiring formal meetings of the Community) of 'corrupting families'116 concerns the proper relationship that bhikkhus should develop with lay followers.

:

:

A bhikkhu's wrong mode of livelihood also includes:

"running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state, householders, etc. A modern example would be participating in political campaigns." (BMC p.152)

What do you think of the application of this rule?

I think that this is probably applicable. I have not studied the rules for monks hardly at all so I am certainly not wanting to pursuade people to adopt my view but my so far not very well educated view is that the Buddha probably would not approve of what the demonstrating monks are doing. So far what I have seen of the rules and what I have heard about why the rules were formulated and how I have heard that the Buddha described what the monk lifestyle ought to be is that a monk should be somewhat withdrawn from the worldly sphere and their demeanor should be polite and subdued...it should offend no one. It seems like I remember reading that whenever complaints were made about monks' behavior the Buddha would make a rule to eliminate or modify the unacceptable behavior. Things that were considered disgusting to eat were not allowed to be eaten so that the local sensibilities were not offended. I know that none of this PROVES that the Buddha would not approve of the monks' demonstrating but to me it is somewhat convincing. For me it is not a personal issue whether monks do everything according to the Buddha's teachings as they are preserved. Intention is a very important part of the acceptability of actions as taught by the Buddha and since the gov't in Burma is so repressive I imagine that the monks mostly have good intentions so if their actions are not pure then they are at least probably mitigated by the good intentions. Be aware here that "good intentions" when used within the context of the Buddha's teachings are not the same as "intending good" in a modern understanding.....the same goes for compassion in my view....compassion within the context of the Buddha's teachings is not the same as the compassion described in modern literature or parlance.....in my view.

I don't view monks as being such a big deal as most Buddhists do. I guess its great for people to be monks and it has preserved the teachings over 2,500 years which is certainly a benefit we have accrued from generations of monks....but I actually sometimes have the heretical view that for some monks thier monkdom is actually to their detriment and that being a monk is somtimes indulging in an unhealthy attachment.....but this is only my view from time to time and the Buddha taught we should learn to give up our views.

Chownah

[Plus]

Monks belong to a higher social level than kings, they serve higher authorities (dhamma). From that point of view runnning errands for politicians is not appropriate, and that would include campaigning for democracy as long as its percieved as serving someone's political interests. Note how pro-democracy activists were quick to use monks to gain publicity. Being used by politicians, even well meaning ones, is not what monks are supposed to do.

On the other hand the monks are obliged to offer advice and guidance to the rest of the population, including kings. In Thailand we have a brahmin body for that, but the principle is the same, I believe. From that position monks were within their rights to ask/demand compassion from Burmese rulers.

The big question is what they think of their marches now, after scores of lives were lost, essentially for nothing. Would they do it again? How many more monks they are willing to sacrifice? How many more laymen? What is an acceptable proportion - three dead laymen for each killed monk?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

I bet they look back at their protests and think "What a big screw up that was! I swear I won't let anything like that to happen again."

[phibunmike]

...

that a monk should be somewhat withdrawn from the worldly sphere and their demeanor should be polite and subdued...it should offend no one. It seems like I remember reading that whenever complaints were made about monks' behavior the Buddha would make a rule to eliminate or modify the unacceptable behavior.

...

Yes, this comes through again and again in the "rules".

When you see the monks marching on TV, "arms akimbo" and "talking loudly", it does not seem like "monkly" behaviour. Therefore it probably is not. This is a subjective argument, I admit.

If this had happened in the time of Buddha, and Buddha heard the complaints of some people that monks should not behave like that (like ordinary people), he perhaps would have made a rule to prohibit it. Or perhaps he already did.

I had no firm idea of whether their action was right or wrong (in terms of the Buddha's teachings) at the beginning of this thread, but I am beginning to form one now.

[chownah]

Maybe a good thing to remember is that there were no democracies in the Buddha's time and ALL the gov't's were "dictatorships" of one sort or another....and yet there is no teaching about political reforms at all.....and I'm sure that at least some of the governmenmtal jurisdictions were as cruel and repressive as what is in Burma today....althoough in those days the jurisdictions were much smaller making it easier for a monk to simply walk away from it to a place where either there was no gov't (the jungle and forest) or to a more humane jurisdiction.

The Buddha never taught to speak out about political matters that I have ever heard of although I'm reasonably sure that there was politics happening.

Chownah

[phibunmike]

Chownah, I would be interested in your opinion on this idea:

When you see the monks marching on TV, "arms akimbo" and "talking loudly", it does not seem like "monkly" behaviour. Therefore it probably is not. This is a subjective argument, I admit.

[chownah]

Chownah, I would be interested in your opinion on this idea:

When you see the monks marching on TV, "arms akimbo" and "talking loudly", it does not seem like "monkly" behaviour. Therefore it probably is not. This is a subjective argument, I admit.

When I see monks exhibiting this behavior my first reaction is the same...i.e. that it isn't very monkish....but then I remember that this is just a function of my conditioned views about what I think a monk should be. If this thread was about whether we think the monks in Burma were behaving in a monk like way then just expressing our personal views on how monks should act would be on topic and hunky dory....but since this thread is about whether the monks actions are in line with the Buddhas teachings then my feeling is that we should be talking about our views of the Buddha's teachings and how we think this applies to their actions. It is also interesting to see how different people react differently and how this compares to the Buddha's teachings but when a thread here goes on for many posts with nothing but personal views, without any reference to Buddhism at all then I get bored.

Chownah

[phibunmike]

Chownah, I would be interested in your opinion on this idea:

When you see the monks marching on TV, "arms akimbo" and "talking loudly", it does not seem like "monkly" behaviour. Therefore it probably is not. This is a subjective argument, I admit.

When I see monks exhibiting this behavior my first reaction is the same...i.e. that it isn't very monkish....but then I remember that this is just a function of my conditioned views about what I think a monk should be. If this thread was about whether we think the monks in Burma were behaving in a monk like way then just expressing our personal views on how monks should act would be on topic and hunky dory....but since this thread is about whether the monks actions are in line with the Buddhas teachings then my feeling is that we should be talking about our views of the Buddha's teachings and how we think this applies to their actions. It is also interesting to see how different people react differently and how this compares to the Buddha's teachings but when a thread here goes on for many posts with nothing but personal views, without any reference to Buddhism at all then I get bored.

Chownah

My comment was a direct reaction to the teachings of the Buddha, where whenever someone complained about monks acting in a non-monkish way, he created a rule proscribing the behaviour. I probably did not make that clear in my earlier post. In the time of the Buddha, "someone" usually meant "villagers" - now I think it can be extended to include forum members. From your remark, it sounds as though you are looking specifically for written rules relating to the specific circumstances (objective), rather than interpreting the underlaying message (subjective). Correct me if I am wrong. That is fine, but I see no harm in widening the discussion.

The Buddha said "when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome and wrong and bad, then give them up" (Anguttara-nikaya). This would appear to act in a similar way to a constitution with respect to law: it establishes some basic principles which allow us to infer new rules to cover scenarios not specifically covered by the extant rules.

I recognise that I have little understanding of Buddhism, which is why I am persisting with my enquiries.

Cheers,

Mike

[sabaijai]

Maybe a good thing to remember is that there were no democracies in the Buddha's time and ALL the gov't's were "dictatorships" of one sort or another....and yet there is no teaching about political reforms at all.....and I'm sure that at least some of the governmenmtal jurisdictions were as cruel and repressive as what is in Burma today....althoough in those days the jurisdictions were much smaller making it easier for a monk to simply walk away from it to a place where either there was no gov't (the jungle and forest) or to a more humane jurisdiction.

The Buddha never taught to speak out about political matters that I have ever heard of although I'm reasonably sure that there was politics happening.

Chownah

Good points, something to think about.

[chutai]

Maybe a good thing to remember is that there were no democracies in the Buddha's time and ALL the gov't's were "dictatorships" of one sort or another....and yet there is no teaching about political reforms at all.....and I'm sure that at least some of the governmenmtal jurisdictions were as cruel and repressive as what is in Burma today....althoough in those days the jurisdictions were much smaller making it easier for a monk to simply walk away from it to a place where either there was no gov't (the jungle and forest) or to a more humane jurisdiction.

The Buddha never taught to speak out about political matters that I have ever heard of although I'm reasonably sure that there was politics happening.

Chownah

There is a strong element of truth in this, but it's not entirely accurate to say that Shakyamuni's India was entirely devoid of democracy, nor was the Buddha completely apolitical.

The Pali Canon gives a much fuller, if somewhat indirect, depiction of democratic institutions in India, confirming and extending the picture found in Panini. This is found in three of the earliest and most revered parts of the canon, the Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, the Mahavagga, to toand the Kullavagga.45 These works, taken together, preserve the Buddha's instructions for the proper running of the Buddhist monastic brotherhood -- the sangha -- after his death. They are the best source for voting procedures in a corporate body in the earliest part of the Buddhist period. They also give some insight into the development of democratic ideology.

The rules for conducting the Buddhist sangha were, according to the first chapter of the Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, based in principle on those commonly found in political sanghas or ganas. In the case of the Buddhist sangha, the key organizational virtue was the full participation of all the monks in the ritual and disciplinary acts of their group. To assure that this would be remembered, detailed rules concerning the voting in monastic assemblies, their membership, and their quorums, were set down in the Mahavagga and the Kullavagga .

For a wider discussion on this subject see:

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/histor...em/indiadem.htm

But whether we use a small case 'p' or an upper case 'P' in defining Shakyamuni as being political is crucial. Of course he had no sway over the institutional form of government in India (but has been said to predict the coming of King Ashoka [280 BC] who abandoned warfare and took vigorous steps to ensure the the health and welfare of his subjects). However, Shakyamuni was acutely aware of the political struggle that would ensue within the Sangha after his death. It has been speculated, and I tend to agree, that the reason he said that no Buddhist is to look outside himself for aid, yet he is invisibly encouraged by the power of certain ideals to which he has given his trust — Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha - and again somewhere else to put faith in no man only the Dharma, was exactly because his time of extinction was drawing near and he fully comprehended what would ensue afterwards.

We ought not to take Shakyamuni completely outside of his socio-political environment ,but rather to understand that much of what he spoke was not only the Truth; but also addressed to the ruling ideas of his time and the mentality of both his listeners and followers - as well as their fundamental darkness, or human delusions.

But a wider discussion India during Shakyamuni's lifetime is in itself an exacting and rigorous endevour, but we should be cautious of tending to view it according to the development of our own (Western) democratic evolvement. But it has to be said that there certainly was great deal of intellectual freedom around in India at that time ; if we are to take The Questions of King Milanda and how through those, that Buddhist thought has been said to have exerted an influence upon the Greek world.

Edited December 2, 2007 by chutai

[chownah]

"...............

From your remark, it sounds as though you are looking specifically for written rules relating to the specific circumstances (objective), rather than interpreting the underlaying message (subjective). Correct me if I am wrong. That is fine, but I see no harm in widening the discussion.

The Buddha said "when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome and wrong and bad, then give them up" (Anguttara-nikaya). This would appear to act in a similar way to a constitution with respect to law: it establishes some basic principles which allow us to infer new rules to cover scenarios not specifically covered by the extant rules.

I recognise that I have little understanding of Buddhism, which is why I am persisting with my enquiries.

Cheers,

Mike

Phibunmike,

Actually I'm not looking for anything in particular....as I said before I don't really have an opinion about what the monks in Burma should or should not do. I would like to point out, though that the monks in Burma are Theravada Buddhist monks which means that there is a specific collection of Scriptures and Explanations (which are called Commentaries) which they ascribe to...so while we can each bring our own view of the "underlaying message" to the table for me it seems most relevant to discuss this from the standpoint of the type of Buddhism those monks are supposed to be practicing...however there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to approach this from any Buddhist perspective since this forum is not specifically for discussion of the Theravadin point of view. I have no problem with people explaining and discussing there own derivitive views ("underlayinlg message")on the Buddha's teachings but I think it is best to try to seperate the actually words of the teachings as they have supposedly been handed down to us from the speculation as to what can be justified using them.

Also, in extrapolating the teachings it is so easy to produce what I think are false results. For example you said, "The Buddha said "when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome and wrong and bad, then give them up" (Anguttara-nikaya). This would appear to act in a similar way to a constitution with respect to law: it establishes some basic principles which allow us to infer new rules to cover scenarios not specifically covered by the extant rules." .....and I have no special arguement with this but I do not think that this should be seen as an example of the Buddha's teaching justifying the actions of the monks.....perhaps this is not what you intended to do anyway. For people to be politically active to change their gov't is one thing and for monks to do so is an entirely different thing altogether.....I just can't see where the Buddha's teaching sanctions monks being politically active nor do I see some "underlaying message" that the monks should be politically active....the Buddha (in my view) seemed to be quite specific about what was appropriate action for monks and didn't really leave too much to be guessed at.

A thought has just occured to me. Creating a split in the Sangha (monkhood) is taught to be a very very bad thing with terrible kammic consequences.....if political activity was allowed then wouldn't this be likely to cause a split in the monkhood?...and thus to be avoided?

Chownah

[phibunmike]

.....and I have no special arguement with this but I do not think that this should be seen as an example of the Buddha's teaching justifying the actions of the monks.....perhaps this is not what you intended to do anyway. For people to be politically active to change their gov't is one thing and for monks to do so is an entirely different thing altogether.....I just can't see where the Buddha's teaching sanctions monks being politically active nor do I see some "underlaying message" that the monks should be politically active....

Actually my point was the opposite, that the "underlaying message" message (as I interprete it: "monks should not do un-monkish things") would proscribe the political protests by the monks.

But I do accept that extrapolation from his teachings is risky, and also I agree that such arguments should be clearly separated from arguments based on actual written teachings.

Your last point about the potential to cause a split sounds valid to me, but that again is conjecture, is it not?

I don't think I have anything further useful to contribute to this thread so I will stop here.

Cheers,

Mike

[chownah]

Your last point about the potential to cause a split sounds valid to me, but that again is conjecture, is it not?

Even less than a conjecture....just a suggested question for consideration.

Chownah

[sabaijai]

Falling Back on Buddhism

By Moe Yu May

RANGOON, Jan 8 (IPS) - Burma’s military leaders lived up to their reputation as repressive rulers on the day this country celebrated 60 years of independence from British rule. This erstwhile capital's main road was closed for two hours on the morning of Jan. 4.

Elsewhere in this city of dilapidated colonial-era buildings, security officers in plain clothes and officials from townships were visible on the streets to monitor possible anti-junta protests. Near the Sule Pagoda road, where pro-democracy protestors had marched last September, members of the feared riot police stood guard.

It was a setting that prompted disgust in a 40-year-old Burmese university lecturer. ‘’I don’t feel any freedom especially in these days,’’ said the academic. ‘’A question that I keep asking in my mind is did our country really gain independence. I do really want to feel freedom.’’

In mid-August last year, there were some Burmese who dared to believe that such a feeling of freedom was possible. Small protests mushroomed across the country after the junta raised the price of oil overnight by 500 percent without advanced notice. For some among the country’s long-suffering public, that latest economic burden meant giving up regular meals.

By late September, this movement had expanded into a popular uprising, attracting tens of thousands of ordinary people on to the streets of Rangoon. The protests were led by this Buddhist nation’s respected monks.

But then came the brutal crackdown by the junta, where armed soldiers and riot police turned on the unarmed civilians and monks. A U.N. investigator revealed that at least 31 people were killed, but anti-junta groups have said that close to 200 lives were lost. In addition, over 650 monks and civilians were arrested and thrown into jails were torture and abuse are rampant.

Yet in the three months since, there are emerging signs that such a brief flicker of freedom has not been extinguished. Rather than take to the streets to get rid of the military leaders, who have ruled this country since a 1962 coup, Rangoon’s residents are doing so through the strength of Buddhist teachings, the Dhamma.

The residents have been organising Dhamma assemblies in many places to listen to sermons about morality from some of the country’s prominent monks. At times, these sermons have been used by the monks to give counsel and obliquely criticise the junta. A favoured approach by some monks is to draw lessons from the life of the Buddha.

These Dhamma assemblies, which tend to run for two hours in the evening, are drawing large crowds. One held on Dec. 29 in the Tarmawe Township had attracted close to 3,000 people. Another, at Rangoon University’s religious hall, drew a similar number of followers. A religious talk held in mid-December in a football field of a state high school in the Insein Township had one of the largest gatherings – close to 20,000 people.

Some of these sermons have been heard by those who could not make it to the prayer assemblies, too. That stems from a cottage industry of compact discs (CDs) that has emerged to copy and distribute some of the more spiritual and provocative sermons. The latest collection on offer in Rangoon is one of 19 Dhamma talks.

‘’I’ve been busy copying and sending out these CDs to other towns as well, though it costs me,’’ one Rangoon monk told IPS on condition of anonymity.

But video compact discs (VCDs) of another kind – humour-- are also circulating within Burma. The stars here are some of the country’s comedians who have been performing at festivals and fairs, a common feature of life after the monsoon ends in November. And the junta has been the subject of some of the barbs.

One of the jokes broadcast at a fair in a park in Rangoon that went down well with the public focused on the five enemies of mankind. They are water, fire, the king, the thief and a person who bears ill will towards another. On that day, a comedian added his own twist, saying: ‘’Now we have only three enemies left, since the king, the thief and the one who bears ill will towards another are the same.’’

The junta, however, has launched a predictable counter strike to crush the spread of laughter. Permission for a public show on Jan. 3 featuring a troupe of comedians was withdrawn. This performance, which was to have been held at the Kan Taw Gyi park, had already been advertised and tickets had been printed.

Such censorship is common in a country where the military regime has gained notoriety for stamping on press freedom, jailing political opponents, and placing the country’s pro-opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest for over 12 years. The Burmese military has also been condemned by the international community for compelling ethnic minorities to do forced labour, for using rape as a weapon of war and for interfering with humanitarian programmes.

But if the dhamma assemblies and CDs in circulation serve as an indicator, it points to a growing anger against the junta that no amount of oppression would be able to wipe out. There are some political activists who say that this anger could boil to the surface this year, in a repeat of what happened in September last year, or in a different form.

The junta, however, is taking no chances. ‘’A military truck has been parked near our monastery since New Year and soldiers are on duty in the area,’’ said a monk who lives in Rangoon.

Source: IPSNews.net