23 Aug 2011

Buddhists share their thoughts about homosexuality at forum in Kuala Lumpur

Venerable Miao Jan, the coordinator of Prajna Meditation Association of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor: Gay people should face their own sexual orientation honestly and openly, come out bravely and not live in the closet.

The Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia (YBAM) and Buddhist Research Society of Malaysia (BRSM) held a seminar titled “Homosexuality: The Controversy in the Midst of Morality and Social Value” on Aug 19 in Kuala Lumpur.

Established in 1970, the Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia (YBAM) coordinates 270 member organisations through 13 State Liaison Committees across Malaysia.

The Sin Chew Daily on August 19 reported that about 200 people attended the open forum which had three panelists: Venerable Miao Jan, the coordinator of Prajna Meditation Association of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor; Datuk Ang Choo Hong, the president of the Buddhist Research Society of Malaysia; and Yap Hock Heng, a registered and licensed counsellor. The forum was emceed by YBAM secretary general See Chan Wing.

The following is a translation (by Fridae member Felix Liew) of a report published by Chinese language Sin Chew Daily on August 20:

The news of the traditional Chinese wedding of Malaysia’s first lesbian couple and the upcoming same-sex marriage of Rev. Ouyang Wen Feng to be celebrated in Malaysia has caused a stir in Malaysian society, drawing criticisms particularly from Christian groups. However, the coordinator of Prajna Meditation Association of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, the Venerable Miao Jan, encouraged gay people to face their own sexual orientation honestly and openly, urging them to come out bravely and not live in the closet [literally dark corners].

Ven. Miao Jan pointed out that she was not promoting the gay culture. But in her opinion, if gay people did not live honestly with their sexuality, they would fall in love with the wrong person someday, which would lead to pain not only for themselves, but also for their loved one(s).

“Let gay people talk about their love life. We could only respect them and learn how to get along with them.” “I have a lot of gay friends too. Don’t treat them as though they are horrible people. They are also fun to be with and they are such lovable people. Besides, how does this present a problem to non-gay people?”

When asked whether gay people adopting children would create social problem, she did not answer the question squarely, but turned the question around and asked: “How much happiness can straight families today guarantee their children? The divorce rate is high these days, and this should give us room for thought.”

Datuk Ang Choo Hong said he treats gay people as normal. Gay people have long existed since the time of Buddha. He said if people could not bless Rev. Ouyang’s marriage, then they should keep quiet.

Yap Hock Heng was more concerned with the attitude that people have towards a gay person. Are they friendly? Are they willing to be in a gay person’s company? Are they willing to listen to their story and guide them?

He said that the fact that the media reported heavily on same-sex marriage would not encourage the gay culture [turn more people gay]. Rather, it would cause people who are already gay to come out of the closet.

The Chinese language Nanyang Daily report published a report on August 20. The following is a translation of the report by Fridae’s Chinese editor:

Ven. Miao Jan blesses Oyoung Wenfeng; we need not fear our homosexual friends

Ven. Miao Jan (Coordinator of Persatuan Meditasi Prajna KL and Selangor) says she has several homosexual friends around her and she does not regard them as fearsome; afterall, what has that got to do with the non-homosexuals?

With regards to Oyoung’s marriage, she pointed out that so long as he abides by the law, it is fine. It does not matter whether non-homosexuals with be happy or unhappy about it. She says as long as he will carry the responsibility of a marriage, his marital affairs is his own business; we do not have a say.

She feels that many people in society create too many assumptions about homosexuals/homosexuality, speculating that if everyone is homosexual, human kind will become extinct. She retorts: Do you think everyone will want to become a monk/nun/ordained (出家)? Once homosexuality becomes recognised/accepted, will everyone become homosexual?

When asked about whether social problems will arise when homosexuals begin to bear/raise children, she rebuts by asking: How much do heterosexual marriages ensure the happiness and well-being (幸福) of their children?

She also cited the Lotus Sutra chapter/scripture (《法华经》Sad-dharma Puṇḍárīka Sūtra) where it is taught that monk/nun/ordained persons should avoid contact with five types of people:

1. those born without sexual organs

2. those who lost their sexual organs due to surgery or injury

3. those with a mental state that is neither male nor female (homosexuals)

4. those who dresses like neither male nor female and

5. bisexuals

Datuk Ang Choo Hong (President of Buddhist Research Society of Malaysia): If you can’t bless Oyoung, then just keep quiet

He mentioned two tales from early Buddhism: Soreyya, who is sometimes male, sometimes female; and Vakhali who is homosexual. Both did not attain enlightenment through spiritual means eventually.

The commandments/doctrine of Buddhism are applicable for ordained persons (monks/nuns), specifying that the third gender cannot be ordained. For Buddhists who are not ordained, they are not allowed to have sexual contact with 20 categories of people, including parents, siblings, married persons and prisoners.

Brahmajala Suttam scriptures (梵网经 / Brahmajala Suttam) of the later period also states that same-sex intercourse, anal sex and oral sex are not allowed. The earlier scriptures however have no mention. What shall we do?

Mr Yap Hock Heng (Registered & Licensed Counsellor): Homosexuality cannot be suppressed

Homosexuals refer to people who are unable to suppress a sustained fantasy of intimacy with someone of the same sex, and who are repulsed by the opposite sex.

We should extend our kindness to them, rather than over-reacting to them.

He also points out that some teenagers and young people may have special feelings towards a specific friend, but that cannot be categorised as homosexuality. It is common for those aged four to six, and those in their adolescence to experience confusion about gender and sexuality.

There are many factors leading to homosexuality. For those who wish to change through therapy, it is possible to succeed.

If you were present at the forum, please share your observations and/or below.

http://buddhistcelebrities.blogspot.com/2011/08/buddhism-homosexuality-forum.html

I have copied here for archival purpose:

The Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia (YBAM) and Buddhist Research Society of Malaysia (BRSM) held a seminar titled “Homosexuality: The Controversy in the Midst of Morality and Social Value” on Aug 19 in Kuala Lumpur.

about 200 people attended the open forum which had three panelists: Venerable Miao Jan, the coordinator of Prajna Meditation Association of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor; Datuk Ang Choo Hong, the president of the Buddhist Research Society of Malaysia; and Yap Hock Heng, a registered and licensed counsellor. The forum was emceed by YBAM secretary general See Chan Wing.

The news of the traditional Chinese wedding of Malaysia’s first lesbian couple and the upcoming same-sex marriage of Malaysian Christian Pastor, Rev. Ouyang Wen Feng to be celebrated in Malaysia has caused a stir in Malaysian society, drawing criticisms particularly from Christian groups. However, the coordinator of Prajna Meditation Association of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, the Venerable Miao Jan, encouraged gay people to face their own sexual orientation honestly and openly, urging them to come out bravely and not live in the closet [literally dark corners].

Ven. Miao Jan pointed out that she was not promoting the gay culture. But in her opinion, if gay people did not live honestly with their sexuality, they would fall in love with the wrong person someday, which would lead to pain not only for themselves, but also for their loved one(s).

“Let gay people talk about their love life. We could only respect them and learn how to get along with them.” “I have a lot of gay friends too. Don’t treat them as though they are horrible people. They are also fun to be with and they are such lovable people. Besides, how does this present a problem to non-gay people?”

When asked whether gay people adopting children would create social problem, she did not answer the question squarely, but turned the question around and asked: “How much happiness can straight families today guarantee their children? The divorce rate is high these days, and this should give us room for thought.”

She feels that many people in society create too many assumptions about homosexuals/homosexuality, speculating that if everyone is homosexual, human kind will become extinct. She retorts: Do you think everyone will want to become a monk/nun/ordained ? Once homosexuality becomes recognised/accepted, will everyone become homosexual?

Datuk Ang Choo Hong said he treats gay people as normal. Gay people have long existed since the time of Buddha. He said if people could not bless Rev. Ouyang’s marriage, then they should keep quiet.

Yap Hock Heng was more concerned with the attitude that people have towards a gay person. Are they friendly? Are they willing to be in a gay person’s company? Are they willing to listen to their story and guide them?

He said that the fact that the media reported heavily on same-sex marriage would not encourage the gay culture [turn more people gay]. Rather, it would cause people who are already gay to come out of the closet.

If you are interested, please visit their website below:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFAxSUdZTVliR0RWQmxDOHB4Wmp4d3c6MQ

How did the “four-faced buddha”, so popular amongst some Singaporeans (and Thais, needless to say) who goes religiously to Erawan Shrine in Bangkok to “pay back wishes” and to worship, become confused with “a buddha”.

Firstly, when I say buddha (in small), I am talking about a being who is enlightened, full of wisdom, and had escaped the cycle of rebirth according to Buddhist teachings. Whereas the “Buddha” is the founding teacher of Buddhism. More importantly, a buddha:

• does not require your worshiping (he/she is not a god)
• does not grant you wishes, no matter how much you pray or offer
• does not require you to please him/her nor to return any promise for wishes you think you were granted
• he/she does not get angry, punish you, gets pissed off for offending him or not keeping your promise or not paying respect to him/her
• most important we don’t fear a buddha for one is loving, kind, compassion, joyful and generous.

If anyone describes a buddha with these characteristics, he/she is describing a petty deity, not a buddha or the Buddha.

Who is the four-faced buddha then?

The most probable explanation is that he (I used he for sake of convenience) is Brahma (the Hindu/Vedic  creator god) or one of the Brahmas as described in Buddhist texts occasionally. Why would he be confused as a buddha?

Thailand has long been practicing some form of Brahmanism (what we call Hinduism now) long before the arrival of Buddhism. Brahma, although usually worshiped, forms the trinity of creator, preserver and destroyer. Brahma is, of course, often depicted with four-faced and 4 pairs of hands. Over time in India and with the demise of Buddhism in India, the Buddha was somehow assimilated into Hinduism as they claimed that Buddha is just another avatar of Vishnu. Cross fertilization of teachings and worship introduced forms of Buddhism with Brahmic influence arose. So the practice of worshiping various deities also arose in later Buddhism. This mixed form of religion probably got into Thailand through the trade routes, together with the confusion of Brahma as a buddha. Over time, later Buddhism began to worship various Buddhas and deities and Brahma probably became one of the worshiped buddhas. This also explains why amulets and talisman and spells are so commonly associated with Buddhism in Thailand, mainly due to Hinduism and its local religion.

That said, it does not mind that Buddhist teaching have no mention of Brahma. In Buddhist teachings, Brahma is sometimes associated with wisdom or a sublime state of being. We must not forget also that during Buddha’s time, the Vedic tradition is very popular and sometimes teachings have to be explained using the language of the time.

In one text, the story goes that when The Buddha gained enlightenment, he could not decide whether to teach it to the rest of the people because its so difficult. Then Brahma appeared and convinced him to start teaching. Personally, I don’ t think that we can ever take these stories literally; rather, its probably explains the arising of the wisdom within the Buddha to see the benefit of teaching the Dharma to the masses. In the famous text called Brahma Vihara or the abode of Brahma, the Buddha teaches fellow Brahmans that they should develop the states of  loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity which will allow them to transcending into the abode of Brahma.

However, we must know that the idea of Brahma as the idea of a creator god concept, is rejected by Buddhist teachings as incomplete and incorrect.  In Buddhist view, a creator god is just a being who have lived for so long that they have witness the birth of this universe and thought that they had created it. Some of born together with the universe and its life span is tied to it and hence thought themselves as creator. These “creator gods” being still have a life span, albeit very long, and are subject to the same laws of rebirth and when their life span is up and they will too be reborn; and only a rebirth as a human (a bit chauvinistic, I must say) can one then be able to gain enlightenment, liberation and a way out of the rebirth cycle.

As such, I sometimes find it strange that some Hindu traditions can claim the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu because a lot of Buddha’s teachings is directly against the teachings of the Hindu’s idea of a soul and rebirth.

Anyway, Buddhist teachings are considered only a guideline for a lay person. So whether or not you are Buddhist or not or whether you do follow the guidelines or not, it does not offend or anger anyone or any Buddhas. However, as a Buddhist it is important to know that the worship of the four-faced Buddha is not a Buddhist teaching and neither is the entity a “buddha” in anyway. No one, though, will or should stop you for worshiping it at Erawan or any of its shrine, neither should we show disrespect or disgust for Buddhism encourage respect towards other’s believe systems as long as it does not bring harm to oneself or others or does not cause a Buddhist to get the wrong idea of Buddhist teachings.

http://www.island.lk/2008/05/23/opinion7.html

The Panchaseela and Buddhism

Dr. H. S. S. Nissanka’s contribution to The Island Midweek Review of 14/5 is very informative and interesting. Among many other things, he refers to a “stormy session at Kuliyapitiya Central College. About 400 students had come from all over the country for a Dhamma discussion session. At 9 a.m. the session was started. No panchaseela was recited and because of this the local crowds became very unruly questioning both the reasons for not reciting the panchaseela as well as the ‘Buddhistness’ of the All Ceylon Buddhist Students Union. I tried to respond to them but was shouted down. Even Lionel Lokuliyana, the principal of the school (a greatly respected man not only among Buddhist leaders but also as a prominent writer) was shouted down.”

The unruly crowds were now turning abusive and violent (which reminds me of a typical parliamentary session today in Sri Lanka) and Dr. Nissanka continues, “The crowds demanded an answer by a person who was a well known Buddhist and someone who has read the Tripitakaya. A small-made man in the last row of the hall got up to answer. When I saw that this was Dr. Adkiaram, I ran up to him and invited him to come up to the microphone. He came and sat there and Mr. Mivanapalana (the famous Buddhist scholar) introduced him to the audience. Dr. Adikaram (who had never recited the panchaseela) responded: “I have read all the books of the Tripitakaya, both in Pali and in English. What is the exact question you would like to ask?”

And Dr. Adikaram the only true Buddhist this writer has yet come across, had said that there were famous scholars, Tripitaka acharis, who could recite by heart entire sections of the Tripitaka, and one may have read and re-read all the Buddhist texts and yet remain a crook or a murderer. Dr. Adikaram had added, if one could at least understand one word of the Buddha like Appamada that would be sufficient for him or her to become an arahat. Dr. Nissanka, in his useful essay, says, “With the words of Dr. Adikaram we enjoyed a clam and quiet atmosphere at Kuliyapitiya Central College.”

In a country which is predominantly Buddhist, whether we like it or not, we have an overdose of panchaseela blaring out from every street-corner through loudspeakers from dawn to dusk and again till the late hours permitted by law!

The popular misconception among the Buddhists is if one recites panchaseela or the five precepts not once but as many times as possible he becomes a good Buddhist.

What matters to a Buddhist is not the carrying out of the precepts but the mere utterance. This writer was once invited to a Dhamma sermon at his aunt’s when Venerable Madihe Pannaseeha Thero delivered the sermon commencing with the five precepts or panchaseela which every member of the congregation recited audibly (except this writer).

At the end of the sermon which everybody seemed to listen to, the Venerable monk was driven to the Bambalapitiya Vajiraramaya by the aunt’s son who was a prominent secretary to an equally prominent Buddhist Cabinet Minister.

On his return home he opened a bottle of special arrack which was shared by the pious Buddhist who had just promised to refrain from intoxicants. When the aunt discovered that yours truly was not drinking she whispered, “Jayatissata brandy tikak denanda?” and she, plus the entire congregation were shocked to hear Jayatissa chanting loud as ever “Surameraya majjha pamadatthana veramani.”

The Buddhists in this country have made panchaseela a joke by consuming liquor not only after a bana sermon but even during bana! No almsgiving is complete without the men folk enjoying a ‘sumihiri paanaya’, even inside a room. All monks know this.

Chanting panchaseela is a system, a system being a method, a practice, the repetition of something over and over again. Does that make the mind sensitive, alive, active, intelligent?

On the contrary, it makes the mind mechanical. Any system, the Hindu system, the Christian system or whatever prevents the mind from perceiving what is true. Panchaseela does not lead you anywhere. It only makes the mind so dull that one does not realize even the meaning of a single precept after constant repetition.

Chanting panchaseela, repeating the words of a monk, implies authority. A mind that is held by authority is not a free mind, the authority of a monk or bishop, and such a mind is incapable of observing the truth. So repeating after somebody the panchaseela will never make one a Buddhist. If it were so this land must be heaven considering the number of times one hears it daily over the radio, TV and loudspeakers.

If you want to understand the truth of something whether it is panchaseela or anything else you must stop repeating it like a parrot. You must give your whole attention, all your energy. Then you will observe how the repetition of the five precepts or panchaseela is not going to make you a Buddhist though that is the popular misconception.

No wonder a great man like Dr. E. W. Adikaram, a man among men lived a holy life without ever chanting panchaseela.

Such men are the true Buddhists!

Jayatissa Perera,
Bambalapitiya.

Zen Buddhism finds a cure for a society that has become too steep in intellect, logic, preconceived ideas, dualism and self-professed knowledge. Its reasoning is illogical and its riddle at best insane. But its our mind that are the obstacles, not the illogical reasoning nor insane riddles.

Clear you mind just once, just once… and it becomes clear as sky, silent as a forest pond.

For many people of intellect, they find it hard to understand, yet the truth is only so simple. Many people have tried to elaborate on this practice, but I find that Zen Master Seung Sahn could capture and explain this most directly and clearly.

I was re-reading one of his books and came across his speeches again and am struck by how simple it can be, but at the same time how hard it is.

This is a except from the Dropping Ashes on the Buddha: the Teaching of Zen Master Seung Sahn, pages 102 – 104…

A Dharma Speech

Given by Seung Sahn Soen-sa
at the San Francisco Zen Center
on February 9, 1975

(Hitting the table with his Zen stick) Do you understand this? If you do, you understand One. If you don’t, you separate things into ten thousand classes and one thousand levels.

(Hitting the table) Do you understand this? If you do, you understand the ten thousand classes and one thousand levels. If you don’t, you have an attachment to One.

(Hitting the table) Do you understand this? If you open your mouth and say that you understand, I will hit you thirty times. And if you say that you don’t understand, I will still hit you thirty times.

Why?

KATZ!!!

Spring air fills the universe, and flowers are blossoming everywhere.

If you proclaim this, you shut the mouths of all Buddhas and all eminent teachers. So how can you hear what they say? To hear what they say, you must understand what sitting Zen is.

When you are able to stay perfectly clear by cutting off all thinking and yet not falling into a trance-like sleep, this is sitting. When inside and outside become one, and no circumstances can hinder you, this is Zen,

When you understand sitting Zen, you understand yourself. In your mind there is a diamond sword. If you want to understand yourself, take it and cut off good and bad, long and short, coming and going, high and low, God and Buddha. Cut off all things.

You must proceed as if you were walking on thin ice, concentrating totally on each one of your steps. If you make one wrong move, you will die and go to hell like an arrow.

Passing beyond this realm of not-thinking, you reach the land of true emptiness. True emptiness is before thinking. This land is without words or speech; so there are no mountains, no rivers, no East, West, North, or South, no God, no Buddha.

But if you stay there, you will become attached to emptiness, and not even Buddha will be able to save you.

When you are hanging by your hands from a mountain ledge and can let go, not thinking of life or death, then you will have true freedom. You can see the wooden dog eating steel and shitting fire. You make friends with the hairy¬shelled turtle and the rabbit with horns. You learn to play the flute which has no holes. But where does the sound of the flute come from?

Leave this place behind, and you understand that birds sing, hills are green, and the sky is blue. Seeing, hearing,smelling, tasting, touching-the truth is just like this. This is the language of Buddha and eminent teachers. The sounds of rivers and birds are the sutras; earth and sky are the very body of the Buddha.

(Holding up his Zen stick) Then do you see this? (Hitting the table) Do you hear this? This stick, this sound, and your mind-are they the same or different?

If you say they are the same, that is not permitted, and the stick will hit you. If you say they are different, that is not permitted, and the stick will hit you. If you say they are both different and the same, that too is not permitted, and the stick will hit you even harder.

Why?

KATZ!!!

If you don’t enter the lion’s den, you will never capture the lion.

… Someone once put me on the spot because of lots of articles in the newspaper about an incident where some Americans were accused of flushing the Koran down the toilet. I was giving a talk two nights later in Perth, and someone asked the question,”If someone flushed a Buddhist holy book down the toilet, as a Buddhist monk what would you do?”

What would I do? Call a plumber!

More on Heartland

———————————-

Source

We have heard rumors that a press conference held by ‘Wat Pa Pong’ was going to call for increased control over Western monks. Thanks to Sanitsuda Ekachai, here’s a preliminary report.

I’m not sure who took part in the press conference, as it mainly uses the formal titles which are never used in conversation. And i don’t know to what extent this ‘press conference’ represents a collective action by WPP. The whole thing is so unprecedented. There are no pre-existing procedures in WPP circles that would enable such things, so whatever happens it is new. It is highly unlikely that the Western Ajahns were consulted, certainly not all of them or in detail. Like the Dhammalight website, or the emails from the supposed watpahpong@gmail.com address – which this interview says were not from WPP – it is unclear whose agenda is being pushed here. The claim is that the conference represents the views of a council of 12 senior monks at WPP. I believe this is an ad hoc committee set up in the wake of the bhikkhuni ordination.

In the statement from the WAM and elsewhere, the Western Ajahns have been at pains to claim that their system is a slow and consensual one, and that deliberation and discussion must proceed any move. Clearly this is not how things are going on. They need to start acknowledging this reality, or else their brothers in Thailand are going to just keep going further off the wall. If WPP is really as consensual as they claim, then they must accept full responsibility for these attacks and views. If it is not consensual, then they need to stop hiding behind this smokescreen and admit that there simply is no way that bhikkhuni ordination could have been reasonably pursued within WPP circles.

Phra Kru Opaswuthikorn presided at the press conference today to urge the Office of National Buddhism and the Council of Elders to issue rules and regulations to empower the Thai Sangha to punish monks overseas who violate the Sangha’s mandates.

Phra Kru Opas spoke on behalf of the Wat Pah Pong executive board which made this decision last week.

Rough summary of press releases:

The Perth ordination is against the Vinaya-Dharma of Thai Theravada Buddhism as well as violating the Wat Pah Pong’s prohibition against female ordination. Aj Brahm was summoned to admit his mistake which refused to do, resulting in the excommunication. This decision was later approved by Somdet Phra Puttajarn who said Aj Brahm’s preceptorship was therefore automatically revoked.

Apart from ordaining women, Aj Brahm was also accused of temple mismanagement. The Bodhinyana Temple came into being through the faith and donations of Thai Buddhists in Perth. After the first abbot left monkhood, Aj Brahm was appointed as abbot and he later changed the temple bylaws and change the temple committee members for “his own interest” despite disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha.

Given that the Bhikkhuni ordination and temple ownership problems have greatly troubled the Thai Buddhists in Australia, a committee should be set up to investigate land ownership and temple mismanagement at Bodhinyana in order to return the land and temple to the Thai Buddhists and to ensure that the temple management is in line with Dhamma Vinaya.

To prevent future problems, rules and regulations should be issued so the Thai Sangha can punish the monks overseas who violate th laws and the clergy’s mandates.

On temple ownership overseas, this poses a problem of control because temples are owned by associations not the Thai Sangha like temples in Thailand. Should the abbots err, they still can stay if the temple committee support them. Or, when the abbots are in the right, they cannot stay if they don’t have support of the committee. The management of temples in Thailand, however, is under Thai Sangha’s administrative structure. When problems occur like in the case of Bodhinyana, it is then difficult to move due to lack of uniform rules which effectively govern temples in Thailand. To prevent similar problems, there should be a state agency to enforce the Thai Sangha law and to cover temples overseas.

I asked whether WPP sent emails to the Thai embasy and Sinporean organisers of Aj Brahm’s talks, the answer is no, WPP did not do that.

Asked if this control effort have been approved by the Western clergy since it would affect the Western monks’ relative autonomy which is useful to their dharma work, the answer that it is the decision of the WPP board consisting of 12 senior monks. That it was approved by LP Liam. But the answer was not clear if the Western Sangha was fully consulted or not.

Phra Kru Sudhamprachote said many Thai Buddhists in Perth are unhappy with Aj Brahm and are trying to find way to get him out the temple. But this is up to the people, WPP cannot do anything to support this action.

I asked if WPP has an alternative to Bhikkhuni. Aj Kevali is in favour of the Siladhara order. But Phra Kru Opas outrightly dismissed it, saying it it would be difficult for the order to be accepted in Thailand. He described Bhikkhuni ordination as against the Dhamma Vinaya. That the Buddha advised monks to stay away from women, because women and monks are like fire and fuel.

I asked what is the real issue concerning Aj Brahm, Bhikkhuni ordination or Aj Brahm’s secrecy and failure to consult the WPP clergy. Phra Kru Opas said the main issue is Bhikkhuni ordination. That there is no way that Thai Theravada Buddhism to have Bhikkhuni. And as far WPP concerns, Aj Brahm is no longer a Thai Theravada monk, but a Mahayana monk.

My hunch : This might be part of the existing problems of internal politics between Thai and Western monks in the WPP order. Luang Por Chah wanted the Western clergy to oversee the Western monks. Consequently, Thai monks have no say on temples overseas. But the Perth ordination shows Aj Sumedho’s failure to keep the monks under his supervision in line so the Thai monks have the reason to step in to control the Western monks and the temple properties abroad.

There are a number of critical points here.

Phra Kru Opas clearly states that the real issue is bhikkhuni ordination, which he says can never be accepted in Thai Buddhism. One the other hand, we have been told again and again by Western Ajahns that the real issue is not bhikkhuni ordination, but the ‘way it was done’. I give the Western Ajahns the benefit of the doubt here: I don’t think they are lying, I think they are just naive. They need to actively develop a culture of denial if they are to maintain the status quo and convince themselves that it is possible to remain with integrity within the existing structures of Thai State Buddhism. As I have said all along, and as the statement here confirms, there never was any possibility of advancing bhikkhuni ordination within the existing structures.

And, as I have also stated repeatedly, siladharas are no better in the eyes of the conservative Thai Sangha. Ordaining siladharas is just as illegal in Thailand as ordaining bhikkhunis – if the 1928 ruling is still in force – and Phra Kru Opas dismisses any chance that that order might make any headway in Thailand. The only advantage of the siladhara order is that it’s easy to dismiss it and not take it seriously. The plain fact is that if these ultra-conservative monks have their way, there is no chance of any improvement in women’s lot in Thai Buddhism.

The most astonishing accusations in Phra Opas’ statement concern the alleged temple mismanagement at Bodhinyana. These claims are so wrong that they beggar belief. Anyone who knows Ajahn Brahm would know that he is the most scrupulous and dedicated manager imaginable. He goes so far as to personally check every call on the phone bill, and will harass Telstra if there’s the slightest problem. The irony is that it was, in fact Wat Nanachat that was badly mismanaged for many years, because most of the other Ajahns, understandably enough, are not so concerned or knowledgeable about such matters. It ended up with lay committee members ripping off much of the donations. The rorts were only ended by Ajahn Nyanadhammo, who set up a rigorous system of checks on finances, which he had learnt to do from his time at Bodhinyana with Ajahn Brahm.

The notion that there are a set of ‘uniform rules’ that ‘effectively govern’ monasteries in Thailand is utter nonsense. Mainstream Thai Buddhism is rotten to its core. This is a staple part of Forest Tradition ideology. You don’t have to take my word for it, look at the actions of Phra Mongkut, or Ajahn Mun, or Ajahn Chah. They all operated under the quite reasonable knowledge that mainstream Thai Buddhism was bereft of any genuine Dhamma, and that only by reforming or living on the margins of the system could one live with integrity.

Things have not improved since their times. On the contrary, it has got much worse. The past generation has seen unprecedented wealth pour into the coffers of the Thai Sangha. There is precious little oversight and no proper policies on how to deal with this. The situation in the past at Wat Nanachat was not the exception but the norm – and not every monastery has an abbot trained in Australian accounting procedures. Everyone agrees that the existing system is inadequate at best and needs overhauling, yet no-one has been able to do it. So it just lurches along from scandal to scandal.

In the forest monasteries you will constantly hear stories of how corrupt the city/village monks are: the monks who set up a still to brew the leftover sticky rice from alms-round – and then tried to sell the liquor back to the villagers; the monastery that was running a brothel out the back; the use of temple boys to pleasure the monks; the monk who had an affair with a novice, and then when he got jealous, murdered his unfaithful lover; the tudong monk who stayed overnight in a village monastery, only to wake up with a naked monk in his bed; the village who got so sick of their monks’ behaviour they took their Buddha image to Bangkok, dumped it and declared they would no longer be Buddhists; the monastery that was so jealous when a nearby monastery actually started teaching meditation that they accused the meditation teacher of being a communist spy; the monks who salt away all the temple money for years, then disrobe and retire rich; selling drugs from monasteries; or the claim by the Thai Religious Affairs department that 10% of Thai monks were addicted to methamphetamine. And on it goes.

But none of these are the problem: ordaining bhikkhunis is the problem.

A few more specifics need mention.

After the first abbot left monkhood, Aj Brahm was appointed as abbot and he later changed the temple bylaws and change the temple committee members for “his own interest” despite disagreement from the Bodhinyana Sangha.

The interesting thing about these claims is not just the fact that they are so utterly without foundation, but that the monks are so out of touch with what is actually happening that they can actually believe them (I presume) and that they can imagine that they don’t just make themselves look silly. Of course, in the media you can say anything, and since most people know even less about the issues some people will always believe it. But it is such a radically unethical approach it is hard to see how it cannot but rebound on the accusers.

To prevent future problems, rules and regulations should be issued so the Thai Sangha can punish the monks overseas who violate th laws and the clergy’s mandates.

“Rules and regulations, punishment, violations, and mandates”. Everything that this interview is about is exactly the opposite of why we became Buddhists, or were attracted to practicing Buddhism, in the first place. Give Buddhism over to these people, and the end is just around the corner.

Phra Kru Sudhamprachote said many Thai Buddhists in Perth are unhappy with Aj Brahm and are trying to find way to get him out the temple. But this is up to the people, WPP cannot do anything to support this action.

Thai people, as I have said again and again, are like people anywhere – diverse and varied. WPP and the Thai Sangha officials do not have a monopoly of what Thai people want or believe. There are, quite probably, some Thais in Perth who do not like the bhikkhuni ordination. There are certainly many who are fully supportive. But the claim that WPP can do nothing about this is untrue: in fact, a senior monk from WPP has been ringing the Thai people in Perth to urge them to act to have Ajahn Brahm removed. This is, of course, just more evidence of how out of touch they are. The committee and lay community in Perth is fully behind Ajahn Brahm.

If this movement gains any momentum, what we may see is the development of a Thai temple in Perth separate from Bodhinyana. It’ll become like every other Thai temple: a place for Thais to go, speak their language, perform their rituals, and be reminded of home. Then they’ll realize that their children are completely alien in this environment, and go to Bodhinayana asking the monks to help teach their children.

The most interesting thing for now will be to see how the other Western Ajahns react – and even more so, what about the junior monks and nuns, and those considering ordination. How do they feel entering such an environment? If these things had been happening when I was new to all this, I would have run a million miles. After a long slow drift towards conservatism, reactionary politics, and sexist institutionalization, now there’s a rapid and dramatic lurch to the extremes.

Although, I don’t know him at all (only met him once), I believe that he is not a bad person at heart, just silly and someone who despite being a monk have not looked beyond material and personal desires. Sometimes when you become popular and no one questions your decisions, it can make you feel a bit godly. Anyone in those position can make such mistakes. Personally, I continue to believe that he has genuine care for the things that he do, maybe some people don’t like him (this is common in the Buddhist circle, I like you, I don’t like you, etc), just maybe he should not be a monk but a business man.

For me, a monk is a home leaver. A person who has made the resolve to leave behind his desires for worldly attachments and to cultivate an unmovable mind in order to save himself and perhaps advice others how to save themselves later. When a monk is constantly engaged as part of a worldly organization, involved in managing assets and are constantly distracted from that goal, then I prefer that person to not to become a monk, but just someone aspiring to be one but have not enough resolve to give up worldly needs yet. That is why  I don’t buy in to the western media portrayal of the safron revolution nor care too much about Tibetan monks and their politics. Monks should not be involved in politics. PERIOD.

Too much attention has been given to Ming Yi’s problem, but I find that the focus is wrong.

Ming Yi’s problem arises from his followers, yes Buddhist lay persons. Without the blind obedience and faith of his followers and their support, how could a monk like Ming Yi be able to commit such mistakes?

One of the biggest problem here in Singapore is that too many Buddhist lay persons sees a monk or nun as a god-like person, to be worship, to blindly follow and to be pampered. There are countless examples of Buddhists give Mercedes Benz as gifts to the monastics, rolex watches, beautiful house and many other expensive and luxurious material gifts. Why does a monk need a rolex watch when a $12 casio is good enough?

It is the lay Buddhists who does not question the behaviours of their monastics nor encourages them to perform the role the monastics should do; providing Buddhist teachings, give up the desire for worldly affairs and wants and needs and most of focus on their own spiritual development.

We all know how difficult it is to unwind at the end of a hectic work day, so too it will be difficult of monks/nuns to unwind if they need to constantly tend to worldly affairs in the office or money matters. So when monks/nuns are engaged in daily worldly affairs, how can they get time to focus on their own spiritual development and continue to let go of their worldly desires and attachments?

I can only say that the Ming Yi disaster is a disaster waiting to happen because it was supported by silly lay persons and somewhere out there other similar disasters are just waiting to happen…

• Ajahn Sujato’s blog: Black Sunday
• Why Ajahn Brahmavamso was excluded from the Wat Pa Phong Sangha
• Ajahn Brahm’s letter on the exclusion

I believe that most if not all Heartland members would be saddened by this act from part of the Thai Sangha of WPP. However, we should all remember that our alignment is to the buddhadhamma and not to any Thai laws or organisation. Its really a big lost to WPP to have excluded Ajahn Brahm from their organisation.

Here is Ajahn Chandako’s personal letter on this issue and reply from Bodhiyana monastery:

• Ajahn Chandako’s personal letter
• Reply from Bodhiyana monastery (read the comments)

Here a letter from Bhikku Thanissaro on why the oridination of the nun is invalid and a reply

• Bhikku Thanissaro’s letter
• Ajahn Brahmali’s reply

I continue to believe that there are many more members of the Thai Sangha and including the lay Thai Buddhists who may agree with Ajahn Brahm’s actions, but have not spoken out and may their wisdom and compassion shine through the Thai Sangha over time.