How we’re mocking Buddhism
There's no use in debating why a “religious” matter like appointing a new Supreme Patriarch has become deeply politicised. In the name of religions, anything is possible -- violence, random killings, invasions, wars, repression, you name it. Even one of
My intent here is not to deplore the politicisation of the quest for a new Sangha leader. What I want to know is how Buddhism in Thailand, which proudly considers itself a haven of the “true dharma”, has shifted from “detachment” to absolute selfish intolerance. On display in the ongoing showdown between supporters of different candidates for the country’s top ecclesiastic post is almost everything that was renounced by Lord Buddha. Are we a “Buddhist” nation, or simply a country full of clueless acolytes?
Let’s take a look at the Supreme Patriarch controversy in parallel with Buddhism’s core principles, one by one.
First, we have “detachment”. The doctrine stemmed from the Buddha’s fundamental belief that nothing belongs to us, least of all the titles bestowed by society or religion. Buddhists are encouraged to let go of all material goods, luxuries, pain, bitterness and even glory. The goal is to realise that nothing lasts, so we won’t waste our time chasing what is at root impermanent and delusory.
Are you practising detachment by threatening turmoil if your preferred choice for Supreme Patriarch is rejected? In other words, is that a “Buddhist thing” to do?
The next doctrine is the “middle path”. Lord Buddha discouraged his followers from taking up extreme or fanatical positions. At the same time he warned them against being lax or complacent in their behaviour. He wanted them to be flexible and alive to the constantly changing world. One analogy familiar to Buddhists is the strings of a musical instrument: Too tight and they will break; too loose and they become unplayable.
Have the different camps taken the middle path in setting a collision course over the Supreme Patriarch affair? You tell me.
Then we have the Noble Truths of “suffering and its causes”. Love, greed, anger and lust are sure-fire ways, Buddhists are warned, of becoming stuck in the cycle of worldly misery. In other words, they are detachment’s greatest enemies. While non-Buddhists might balk at the notion of “love” as an obstacle to enlightenment (although the Buddha was likely not referring to love in its truest, ultimate form), it has played no part in the current confrontation anyway. The other three causes, however, are dictating the course of the controversy.
Another decidedly un-Buddhist trait on display in the Supreme Patriarch fiasco is perhaps not given a name in Lord Buddha’s teachings. It’s the urge to control, to suppress others, and to be omnipotent. It’s the opposite of selflessness. What we are witnessing is vanity running amok.
Genuine Buddhism has never been about control or domination. It requires no holy war, as Lord Buddha never aspired to forcibly convert the world. Every follower is encouraged to scrutinise and test his teachings and granted absolute freedom to do so.
You don’t go to hell if you turn away from the religion. Buddhists parents are not obliged to have their children profess the same belief. (It’s true that Buddhism is the state religion in some countries, but only because it has become enmeshed in politics and degraded there.)
Simply put, you are either a Buddhist or not, and the Lord Buddha was equally tolerant of either condition. In other words, you can be a Buddhist in a community that embraces another religion or you can hold a separate faith in a community of Buddhists. This principle means that you can be a true Buddhist no matter who is the Supreme Patriarch.
In fact, the concepts of letting go, impermanence and the causes of suffering undermine the significance lent to the title of Supreme Patriarch. While Buddhists do organise their clergy by rank, becoming so obsessed with rank, as is the case in Thailand at the moment, goes against everything Lord Buddha stood for.
On the surface, the concept of the middle path sounds simple to the point of being facile, so much so that it has been mocked by non-Buddhists. They believe that the path between extremes is for the weak and non-adventurous, a choice made by those who want to “play it safe”.
What escapes their attention is how difficult it is to walk the thin line that separates the noble from the selfish. Those under the sway of fear, anger or the urge to dominate will pass on those vices through their actions. So-called Thai Buddhists at each other’s throat over who should be next Supreme Patriarch are angry, fearful, virtually blind, and standing on the threshold of the dark side.
