“In the Theravada tradition, the Buddha is not a god in either the Hindu-Buddhist or the Judaeo-Christian sense of the term. He is superior to all the gods in the Hindu-Buddhist sense of “god”…Nor is he a god in the Judaeo-Christian sense, for the Buddha is neither a Savior–in Theravada Buddhism, as we shall see, man must save himself–nor is He alive.”
“The preponderant view concerning the Buddha in normative Buddhism (a view shared by almost all Burmese) is that, having attained nirvana, He is no longer alive, in any sense at least in which He can serve as a Savior. He shows the way to, but is not the agent of, salvation.” Interesting excerpts from Buddhism and Society (Melford E. Spiro)
This question has been puzzling and confusing to me all my life. Technically speaking, within Theravada Buddhism, the primary tradition practiced in Burma, there is no palpable importance attached to the notion of ‘God’ or the divinity of Buddha.
Sure, there are hundreds, if not thousands of gods and goddesses, including Hindu ones like Thuyathadi (Saraswati) or spirits like nat that the Burmese worship in times of need. But one interesting thing is whether God figures any role in Burmese Buddhism.
I think some of my confusion arose from my being lost in translation. While growing up, I always equated the Burmese word shi-kho (ရှိခိုး) with English ‘worship,’ which I felt was its closest equivalent. When I actually looked up shi-kho recently, it is defined as “to do obeisance; to pay homage.” Whenever my parents would say Phaya shi-kho or ‘Pay homage to Buddha,’ I would inherently think I was worshiping Buddha, like Christians would to God. This may be because I grew up in the U.S. and what I saw all around me, made me want to find equivalents in my own life. I probably fooled myself into thinking that Buddha chose who to punish (like the cartoons that showed God choosing who went to heaven), especially when I would pray “Andaye kin, bay shin” (အန္တရာယ်ကင်းဘေးရှင်း) or literally “Be free from dangers and clear of harm’s way.” I remember in the third grade, a presumably Christian girl taunted me for being Buddhist, that “Behind Buddha is the Devil,” something I will never forget. Maybe she assumed that all Buddhists worship Buddha as God (as some Mahayana Buddhists do) or that I was idolatrous. I guess in a way, I was a naive kid. It didn’t help that a variety of Burmese phrases like “Phaya ma lo” (ဘုရားမလို့, rough equivalent “Thank God!”) or “Phaya mo gyo pyit” (ဘုရားမိုးကြိုးပစ်, rough equivalent “I swear to God”) that led me to assume Buddha is God.
But even my conception of who Buddha is and his role in Buddhism was skewed from the start. Perhaps my parents assumed that I understood what I was doing every time I put my hands together to pray or could find no perfect way to explain to their American-born kids. I think part of my confusion stems from my own parents’ skepticism and lack of faith in the Burmese monkhood. My mom told me that as a child, her father forbade her from going to the monastery alone or without adults, because in his eyes, “monks are only people.”
My parents, like many other Burmese Buddhists in the U.S., criticize the seemingly Americanized monks who own nice cell phones, refuse to wash their own dishes, drive brand new cars, live comfortable lives, fly first-class and loudly preach the concept that donating to the monastery is the best way to gain kutho (merit). In some ways, this is completely true. There is no sense of social obligation to help the poor or to feed the hungry in the Buddhist sermons I hear nowadays, even though those acts of kindness are just as spiritually rewarding (but I guess not financially rewarding to the monastery). Also, I think the that the reputation of Burmese monks in the U.S. has been marred by their inability to stay united (there are over 11 monasteries alone in Southern California, despite the fact that all share the same doctrine and are part of the same order–it’s mostly because of personal problems between monks that caused such splintering).
The same reason many Burmese Buddhists reject Christianity is because of the Christian notion of God. As in the words of one of my aunts, “Christians believe that murderers and rapists can go to heaven as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their savior,” which completely defies Buddhist expectations, that heinous acts like rape and murder (which are prohibited in the Five Precepts) result in accumulation of bad karma. I think that this, along with the ubiquitous nature of Buddhism in Burma, have prevented Christianity from gaining much ground among most Burmese. However, Buddhism is not completely compatible with some Burmese beliefs either, such as the permanence of the soul, which the Burmese call a leikpya (butterfly), even though Buddhism teaches that nothing is permanent and that in Nirvana, the soul no longer exists. Nor is the Burmese belief in “luck” truly compatible with the Buddhist concept of karma (the Burmese word for both “luck” and “karma” is kan, but the Burmese use “luck” and “karma” in separate contexts).
The Burmese concept of God does not really exist, then, because Buddha does not control who is reincarnated. Burmese Buddhism teaches that each individual makes his or her own choices, accumulates his or her own merit to be reincarnated as a higher being. Buddha is only a beacon, the prime example of someone who eschewed desire to reach Nirvana. Now that I think about it, Buddhists don’t pray to go to heaven or pray to be saved.
I’ve been thinking much about religion these past two years in college, because some of my friends are evangelical Christians who have some pretty rigid and orthodox views who asked why I was Buddhist or why I didn’t convert. Also, while studying evolutionary biology, my professor remarked that “Only in America is evolution rejected,” blatantly referring to the creationists who assert that God created all life. I wondered about what Buddhism taught on the origin of life. I felt at first, that I needed to truly understand my roots, what I believe. I was born to a Buddhist family, but I was a nominal Buddhist for much of the time, just a convenient label for who I was. For the past 19 years of my life, I’ve never had a complete grasp of what Buddhism, at least the Theravada tradition, really is, like so many first generation Asian Americans. To me, it’s been so detached and ceremonial, more like a staged play than honest faith from within my heart. I’ve had so many questions and I’m only starting to get them answered.
Better late than never.
By the way, I apologize for this possibly dizzying entry. I was just sorting out what was on my mind. I’ll post a refined update later on.
You received this email because you are subscribed to the real_time feed for http://viss.wordpress.com/feed/. To change your subscription settings, please log into RSSFWD.
You received this email because you are subscribed to the real_time feed for http://kminnkyaw.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default. To change your subscription settings, please log into RSSFWD.
You received this email because you are subscribed to the real_time feed for http://laminkhin.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default. To change your subscription settings, please log into RSSFWD.
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE By Kavi Chongkittavorn The Nation Published on January 5, 2009
AFTER EIGHT YEARS, it will not be easy to undo the Thai foreign policy towards Burma initiated by the Thaksin-led government and its nominees. A complete overhaul of the Burma policy is out of the question. However, some major shifts by the current government could be forthcoming that would firm up bilateral ties and strengthen Bangkok's voice on Burma within Asean. Additional principled guidelines, drawing from the Asean Charter, are imperative aimed at supporting the international community's effort to promote an open society there. Gone quickly would be the preponderance of one-man decisions on key policies, especially those dealing with cross-border security, investment and trade cooperation. In the past few years, Thailand has been rather compromising in its security considerations in exchange for economic benefits, which often went to individuals rather than the country as a whole. In particular, from 2001 to 2006, the Thai side allowed the Burmese side greater leeway along the 2004-km border such as issues related to Burmese migrant workers, illegal cross-border activities and harassment of minorities and Burmese exiles. Picking up the pieces of Burmese policy where the Democrat-led government left off in early 2001, this time around the Thai foreign policy will be decided in a transparent way without any hanky panky as in the past. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said succinctly that from now on, Thailand will deal with Burma in a straightforward manner without any dubious deals or transactions based on "four-eye meetings", which was the trademark of Thaksin's personalised diplomacy. Prior to the return of the Democrat-led government, Thai-Burmese relations were very superficially closed, representing no real national agenda. Thai leaders were myopic, deluded in thinking that defending the Burmese regime within Asean and the international community would help them win favours from the junta leaders and subsequently secure the country's future energy and natural resources need. Indeed, the energy dependence on Burma was exaggerated to justify Thailand's closer ties with Burma, including its passivity. Throughout the year 1999-2000, before Thaksin came to power, the Burmese people's struggle for democracy and open society was at its peak with all the support of the international community. Asean was far more united as far as peer pressure on Burma was concerned. Thailand dutifully played the leading role on Burma throughout by bringing in the international community. Former foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, currently the Asean secretary-general, pushed Asean to engage in enhanced dialogue with Burma as well as emerging transnational issues affecting the region. However, soon after the arrival of the Thaksin-led government in early 2001, Thai policy towards Burma turned upside down. After a few weeks of border tension and tough talks on Burma's role on cross-border illegal drugs trade, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra unexpectedly softened his Burmese policy, much to the chagrin of the international community. Since then, Thailand's credibility on Burma has disappeared. During the Cambodian conflict, Thailand's role in Asean as a frontline state was well recognised as it was pursued based on the region's interest, not tempered with vested personal interests. Asean helped to internationalise the conflict playing out at the UN continuously for nearly a decade, which gave Asean an international voice, before the Paris peace agreement in 1989. In Burma's case, it was the opposite. Thailand failed miserably to assert itself in the Asean overall approaches albeit it was the most affected by the Burmese growing oppression. Bangkok's willingness to play second fiddle to Burma further divided Asean and stymied broader cooperation with international community. Subsequent revelations by Surakiart Sathiratai, foreign minister in the Thaksin government, showed that investment and commercial deals with Burma at that time were not honest as they were coaxed with conflict of interest. The scandal over the Export and Import Bank of Thailand's Bt4-billion loan to the junta was just one example. Like rubbing more salt into the wounds, former prime ministers Samak Sundravej and Somchai Wongsawat made ridiculous remarks defending Burma. Samak was the most embarrassing as he praised the military junta leaders as peace-loving leaders and boasted about their closed friendship. Under the Surayud Chulanont government (2006-7), Thailand maintained a strict policy of no new contacts or improvement of existing ties. Burma could have made a transition to democracy if the Thai governments in question had not indulged in personalising, nationalising and making the Burmese problem bilateral. The leader's personal and group interests linked to Burma weakened not only Thai credibility, it also belittled Bangkok's voice within Asean. That helps explain why in the absence of a Thai role, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia have become more pro-active in shaping the grouping's views and positions on Burma. Coming to power at this juncture poses serious challenges to both Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit on Burmese policy. They have to revitalise and synergise the role of Thailand, Asean and the international community to move the situation in Burma forward. At present, the Asean Charter, imperfect as it is, will serve as a useful tool to encourage reluctant Asean countries to get more involved on issues of human rights and democracy. The rumblings over the charter's ratification in Indonesia and Philippines were indicative of the strong desire for such endeavour. As the Asean chair, Thai leaders will adopt a comprehensive strategy on Burma that put together various parts and needs from within region. Furthermore, this strategy must also work in tandem with the current international efforts, especially through the offices of the United Nations and related agencies and its special envoy. After all, the Burmese quagmire is not the problem of any particular country or regional community. It must be kept at the multilateral level so that all stakeholders can work together to end the current impasse and sufferings.
You received this email because you are subscribed to the real_time feed for http://myochitmyanmar.org/index.php?format=feed&type=rss. To change your subscription settings, please log into RSSFWD.
You received this email because you are subscribed to the real_time feed for http://maynyane.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default. To change your subscription settings, please log into RSSFWD.
You received this email because you are subscribed to the real_time feed for http://komoethee.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default. To change your subscription settings, please log into RSSFWD.
