Thursday, June 24, 2010

Silence of the monks

When news on the Malaysia Nibbana Meditation Center debacle re-emerged recently in an English daily, it also re-ignites a larger challenge faced by the Buddhist community in the country.

Unlike many countries with significant numbers of Buddhist populace like Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal and some others, Malaysia does not have anyone which holds the title of the Supreme Patriach or Sangharaja who leads the overall Sangha community. Even though some may argued that there are Chief monks, Chao Kun, leader of monks association and so on, these are debatable as all of these titled monks only lords over their respective traditions, lineage and community. In short, there is no such thing as a Supreme Patriach or Sangharaja in the Malaysian Buddhist Sangha Order which all members of the Sangha community respects and honour and submitted to its authority.

The widely used English language title of Chief High Priest of Malaysia meant little to those who follows the Mahayana traditions while those who follows one particular lineage may not endorsed another leader from a different lineage in the Vajrayana traditions. Monks from the Thai Buddhist temples will be reporting to their chief monk or Chao Kun. As for the little-known Malaysia Buddhist Sangha Council, any monk holding the president position does not automatically designates him as the leader of all monks in Malaysia. The position is just another "good to have" title without any real authority to administer over the dicipline and managements of monks in the country.

For the last one century of Buddhism in Malaysia, the closest any Sangha member who can be considered the de facto leader of Buddhists ( Sangha and laities alike) who are able to influence and provide leadership to monks of all traditions and lineages is the late Venerable Dr. K Sri Dhammananda Nayaka Maha Thera. Venerable Dhammananda, who was the Chief monk of the Buddhist Maha Vihara, was able to gained respect and recognition from all groups in the Buddhist community due to his Dhamma knowledge, wisdom, compassion and encompassing personality rather than as the Chief High Priest of Malaysia and Singapore, a title bestowed by the Sri Lankan Theravada Sangha.

In the current scenario, any monk or monks who breaks any major Vinaya rules will most probably get away scot free from any action being taken against them if he claims he is not part of any Sangha community and does not submit to any so-called Sangha authority. There is no laws in the country that can compels any renegade monks that deviated from the Vinaya and the Buddha's Teachings to be disrobed or have any disciplinary action taken against him. This is sad but true state of affairs.

The MNMC issue again highlighted the acute deficiency of a proper and all encompassing monks management system under the authority of a respectable and supreme Sangha body in this country. As mentioned in the other article here, the catalyst to the current situation can be traced to the interpretation of the Vinaya, not the laws governing the MNMC as a registered organisation.

The group which are seeking the "re-opening" of the meditation centre has been leaving no stones unturn to return the centre to the people. This group has approached many senior monks, community elders and various Buddhist organisations and temples in their quest for a solution to the current situation but to no availed. It seems they even networked with overseas Buddhist cleric for support and guidance. They also had approached the relevant authorities to help out in this predicament.

On the other hand, the group which is now in control of the centre are practising their "silent meditation" in response to events which unfolds outside the centre. Their stance are clearly based on the fact they are the legal custodians of the centre in the eyes of the Registrar of Societies. They are praying that by keeping silent and secluding themselves for certain duration, the group outside will slowly wavered and the drive to pursue on the matter will wear off.

But after four years it looks like the situation is still as vibrant as ever. The group inside is still practising their "silent meditation" while the group outside is still pursuing the matter by seeking the Buddhist community's intervention especially the Malaysia Buddhist Association (MBA) and Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia (YBAM).

While the MBA who are mostly led by monks had put in some efforts to sort out this matter;  YBAM which is a lay Buddhist youth organisation has been reluctant to get involved due to some perplexed reason of not wanting to upset the organisation panel of advisors. Is this puzzling excuse connected to the fact that co-incidentally one of YBAM's advisor is also a senior founding member of MNMC who had let down the centre's devotees by not discharging his responsibilities fairly and effectively in solving the matter amicably during the onset of the debacle?

Even though the effort is laudable, the initiative of the Malaysia Buddhist Association to pass the buck to its panel of lawyers to find a solution to the current sticky situation in MNMC reflects the lack of will and lost of direction as a national Buddhist organisation to find a Dharma-based solution on a Vinaya interpretation. It is indeed a sad reflection on the state of Buddhist leadership or specifically the Sangha leadership (if there is any) in this country when a Vinaya problem which involves members of the Sangha are unable or unwilling to be handled by the Sangha but pushed to a panel of lawyers who are all lay people.

Taking the cue from this case, the question now is whether the concept of the monk-laity relationship is being re-defined where the monks now are seeking the lay people to mediate on monks problems when it should be the responsiblities of the Sangha to sort out their own state of affairs. In the absence of an authoritative figure or committee, can the Sangha really effectively manage their own community in this country?

But then how much can the Buddhists in this country expects from the Sangha to solve their own problem? Looking back at some incidents in recent times, how often did the senior Sangha put their foot down to resolve controversies related to members of the Sangha? For example, in a recent case of a monk who held a senior position in a national Buddhist youth organisation, the monk allegedly used his position to instruct his students in holiday workcamps to perform actions which are contrary to the Vinaya. Senior monks from the same lineage who are aware of the horny monk character, did not take any strong and effective actions against him until some of his victims and concern Buddhists initiated plans to make public his actions.

The case above is similiar to another case which happens about two decades ago where one popular monk was alleged to have broken certain Vinaya rules. At the end of the day the embarrasing incident was sorted out and defused not by other senior monks but by the laymen themselves particularly members of the centre where the said monk resided. As usual, the Sangha leadership role in sorting out this issue was negligible and disappointing.

It is estimated that there are about 1,500 Buddhist temples and centres in  this country with slightly more than one thousand Buddhist monks of different traditions residing in their respective temples and centres. No one can guarantee similiar incidents implicating monks that broke the Vinaya rules will not occur again but if there exist a strong and effective Sangha leadership, at least any situation can be nipped at the bud and the matter solved amicably without having it splashed in the frontpage news, causing mental discomfort and embarrassment to the affected individuals and the Buddhist community.

Those who are sitting at the pedestal of the Sangha community must step forward to resolve the MNMC issue and other issues related to those in the holy robes. While it is the responsibilities of the laity and Sangha to protect and pro-long the Buddha-Dhamma, the Sangha must be in the forefront to protect the sanctity of the Sangha. Anything less than that, let the law of karma take its own course. - Loka

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Culture vulture shock

Refering to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word culture was given various definitions but what interest me was those meanings that links to the human society. One definition means advanced development of the human powers; development of the body, mind and spirit by training and experience while another says it is the evidence of intellectual development (of arts, science and etc) in human society.

The meaning which most people generally equated on the word culture are stated as "all the arts, beliefs, social institutions etc, characteristics of a community, race, etc in the said dictionary while the Websters New World Dictionary defined it as "the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc. of a people or group, that are transferred, communicated, or passed along, as in succeeding generations.

Basing on the above meaning, the question to be asked now is whether gambling can be considered a culture and are the Chinese or even non-Muslims accepts the notion that gambling is part of their culture?

Our attention are drawn to the ongoing debates on the necessity of the government to issue a licence to a private company to enable sports betting to be legally available to members of the public. One of the usual arguing point for those that supports sports betting is that it will generate income to the government in the form of taxation from sports gambling. It was further argued by those for the legalisation of sports gambling is that even without legalising it, billions of ringgit are transacted in illegal sports betting by local and overseas syndicates. So the point is, if you can't beat them, joins them!

Surely with the legalisation of sports betting it will make some selected few to be filthy and unashamedly extra millions richer by the click of the mouse. It also can turn one into a generous multi million ringgit philanthropist by channelling the profit for the a purpose built foundation which the public have not heard of until recently! Maybe a slice of the profit can be channelled to build a state of the art public day care centre for the old folks ( especially those who lost their hard earned life savings to gambling) in the city centre. The owner of the sports gambling company do not have to look far for a strategic piece of land for the centre as it is just a stone throw away. They can see it clearly from their office - the century old former Pudu Jail which is destined to be demolished and buried in history in the name of "development".

Anyway, going back to the word culture, there are proponents and supporters of legal sports betting who said that while Muslims do not gamble, the government cannot denied the right of the non-Muslims to gamble as gambling is part of the Chinese culture. How does gambling becomes part of the Chinese culture? Does it means anyone who gambles are Chinese? What about those whites in Europe and US who has been involved in sports betting for years? Are they strongly influenced by the Chinese culture? Mind you, those bookies who provides sports bettings in football and boxing has been doing that long before any Asians got dragged into these multi billions industry.

It was said there is no reason for Muslims to object to the issuing of the sports betting licence as it does not involved them. Does it imply that all non-Muslims including the Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and so on has valid reasons to support the government's intention to issue the sports betting licence because it is part of their culture? Are they saying gambling is allowed in the religions of non-Muslims?

Maybe sooner or later these sports betting proponents will be proven right that gambling is part of the Chinese and non-Muslims culture because the Chinese and non-Muslims has been sportingly silent on this issue. If this claims are not strongly  rebutted by the non-Muslims on the question of whether gambling is part of their customs and characteristics that are passed along from generations to generations, in no time it will be assumed and taken as an accepted fact that, other than the Muslims, everyone is a sporting gambler since it is part of their culture. - Loka

Thursday, June 10, 2010

When monks confused devotees disillusioned

It would not be surprising if members of the public are curious to know which meditation centre the English daily The Star was referring to with regards to the front page news published in Wednesday's edition. Furthermore, since it involved Buddhist monks, this matter surely caused concern to the Buddhist community especially those who are in leadership positions in Buddhist temples or organisations who are expected to protect and uphold the sanctity of the Triple Gem, which includes the Sangha or the community of monks.

To avoid other meditation centres or temples within the vicinity in Kajang being mistakenly linked to the top story of the daily, let it be known that the said centre is the Malaysia Nibbana Meditation Centre (MNMC)which is based in Kajang. The issue regarding the management of the MNMC bungalow cum meditation centre has been in existence since 2006. The centre used to draws huge crowds to its religious sessions and programs. Many local university students in the vicinity also troops into the centre to learn from its founder monk, Venerable Kai Chow.

In the early days when he just started to set up base in Kajang, Ven Kai Chow visited the Sungei Jelok Prison regularly where he provides counselling and Dharma teaching to the prisoners including those in the "Death Row". His works with the prisoners are well known especially amongst the Buddhist community. A compilation on the feelings of the prisoners published by him some years ago was in hot demand after its publication.

In perspective it does not really need much "probing" as what The Star claimed to do as this centre's matter are well known to many Buddhist organisations and community leaders. Furthermore those who reads Chinese vernacular newspapers might have also come across this front page "scoop" sometime ago which is already a stale story that the Chinese press now does not even take it as newsworthy to be published anymore. It is just curious how does the editorial team in The Star decides to front page an outdated story which the Chinese vernacular press already dumped long ago? Or is there any other agenda which only The Star knows?

From the surface, especially for those uninitiated, the said newspaper article was made out to looks like two groups are fighting over the control of MNMC's list of landed properties especially the centre in Kajang but the reality is that the catalyst to the current situation facing the centre did not arise out of any intention to wield control over any of the assets. The situation that created the sparks and caused the centre to go through what is happening today can be traced to different interpretation of the Vinaya (Code of Discipline for monks) by two conflicting school of thoughts. On one side is the centre's founder monk (who already left the centre) while on the other side is a group of six monks who still resides in the centre. Co-incidentally four of the monks still residing in the centre were the disciples of the founder monk. The issue on the control of the assets was an after thought.

Basically a situation which arises from two conflicting views on the Vinaya between the monks spread to the devotees of the centre. In the end the centre's devotees began to take sides and split into at least two conflicting groups. What's happening now concerning the centre are spillover from actions of the members of the Sangha. In the context of the Buddhist teachings, any problems within the Sangha community should be deliberated and solved within and by the monks themselves, preferably with the guidance of learned senior monks within the Sangha.

Lay devotees should not have been dragged into this matter which creates more animosity and frictions within the centre's community which is totally unbecoming in a religious community that vows to uphold and practice the Noble Eightfold Path. The Sangha should be the cause of unity and wisdom not creator of frictions and disillusion in the Buddhist community or any community at large. - Loka





The Star, Wednesday June 9, 2010


Meditaton centre built with public funds now a ‘country club’

By LEE YUK PENG
yukpeng@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: The bungalow, nestled in a secluded spot amidst dense greenery, is supposed to be a temple that was built on public donations.
But accusations have surfaced that the “meditation centre” in a Kajang neighbourhood has been operating like a country club – open only to its estimated 30 members.
Almost 100 Buddhist devotees have been asking for the re-opening of the temple, built in a sprawling leafy area, since last year.
Their petition is seen on a website which was started last year by several former university students who once volunteered at the place.
According to them, the centre has been closed to the public since October 2006. The priest, who was the founder, quit that year.
The latest posting on the blog was dated May 29. It showed photographs of the centre, taken from outside its gate, where a CCTV was also installed there.
It is believed that several monks are residing in the centre now.
One of them, when contacted, was hesitant to elaborate about its recent Wesak Day celebration.
“We have our own things to do here,” he said, declining to reveal his name.
Shady place: The entrance to the centre in Kajang is cluttered with dead leaves and the entire place is covered in foliage.
A volunteer, who once helped to coordinate activities of the centre, spoke of her heartache of what the place had now become.
“We started it from scratch. Devotees helped to collect donations to buy the land for the centre,” she said.
According to the former volunteers, the centre sits on a 1.8ha piece of land which was bought from a developer with 50 guarantors in 2001 at RM2.3mil. This was fully paid up in 2004.
According to the website, the centre has another five plots of land elsewhere. The volunteers had sought the services of a valuer, who estimated that all the assets could be worth about RM10.8mil.
Previous news reports indicated that the centre once had about 100 volunteers and attracted 10,000 devotees to its events.
A Hong Kong resident even donated RM100,000 to the centre according to newspaper reports last year.
In its 2008 annual general meeting, members passed a resolution that they would not be seeking an external auditor to audit their accounts.
The centre, the volunteer said, started in 2001 and the priest in charge had a big following due to his community work.
She alleged that things started to go downhill when the monks began to break into factions among themselves.
“Some of the monks even took away several Buddha statues and equipment like loudspeakers,” she claimed, alleging that they brought in gym equipment instead.
Several devotees have lodged a police report about breach of trust but the monks also countered with a report that they had been harassed.
Calls to several officials of the Malaysian Buddhist Association, of which the centre is a member, showed that they were aware of complaints about the centre.
“We are leaving it to our legal team to look into the problem,” one official said.
The devotees have also complained to the Registrar of Societies.
Asked about the centre, registrar Datuk Md Alias Kalil agreed that any place of worship should be open to the public although “in this case, the by-laws of the centre stipulate that it is opened to those deemed as members.”
It is learnt that the ROS will soon be issuing the centre a show-cause letter, seeking an explanation why two laymen were on its committee although its constitution stated that only monks could hold posts.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

In unity we stand with Thai Buddhists

A week before Vesak Day the Thai government decided to face-off with the Red Shirts. The Red Shirts, a group of pro-Thaksin supporters has encamped themselves in central Bangkok for three months by constructing barricades around them with tyres and bamboo sticks. The Thai government led by Abhisit Vejjajiva managed to apprehend the core leaders of the Red Shirts and demolished the barricades.

The whole world was monitoring the situation in Bangkok and many travel advisories were issued by many countries advising their respective citizens to avoid visiting Thailand especially in hot spots areas. The situation in Thailand was of concern to many people, locals and foreigners alike.

For a group of Malaysian Buddhists, the situation in Bangkok affects them too as they were bound to attend the annual United Nations Day of Vesak Conference hosted by the Maha Chulalongkorn University in Ayutthaya from 23 - 25 May 2010. There were concerns by many  regarding the loss of lives during cross fire and by snipers in the Bangkok encampment.

At last, just as other foreign delegates, nearly all in the Malaysian group flew into Suvarnabhumi International Airport on 22 May and transferred smoothly to their respective hotels without any inkling or traces of the shooting incidents happens earlier. As the Thais used to say, it is as smooth as silk. We were never in any occasion or have any thoughts of being unsafe, felt threathened or insecured when we were in Thailand throughout the whole conference.

Even though night curfew was enforced by the Thai government during our stay in Thailand, we never felt any sign of curfew being fully enforced especially when we were staying in Ayutthaya. A group of us were even moving along the main thoroughfare in Ayutthaya and taking the "Tuk-Tuk" transporter back to our hotel during the curfew period. Not even a soldier or military officer was seen!

The only time the foreign delegates really sees a "strong" presence of military officers was during the opening ceremony when the Crown Prince and his wife were in attendance. About 100 soldiers were seen outside the conference hall where the opening ceremony was held. In the hall, some high ranking military officers can be seen sitting in the front rows when the Crown Prince officiated the conference. 

The only time when the delegates stepped into Bangkok was during the final day when the conference was held at the UN Escap Convention Hall. As usual practice all visitors to the UN office have to walk through the metal detactor and personal hand carry need to be hand over for scanning. A regular visitor to this place will not be bothered with this security check.

The Thai government has been very supportive of this conference for the last few years. One of the highlights of the conference was the surprised announcement on the development of a World Buddhist Park near Bangkok. This shows how much efforts Thailand is putting into to support Buddhism and Buddhists worldwide.

During his closing speech, the Rector of Maha Chulalongkorn University, Venerable Dharmakosajarn, who is also the conference chair thank all foreign delegates for taking the effort to travel to Thailand to attend and support the conference in the midst of the internal conflicts.

As for me and also for many foreign delegates it is the spirit of standing in unity, side by side with fellow Buddhists in Thailand  that motivates us to be with them during their period of uncertainty and crisis. The UN Day of Vesak Conference this year delivers not only the Bangkok Declaration 2010 but also the true spirit of the Dharma Brotherhood that radiates and glows in the heart of all Buddhists in the celebration of the sacred Vesak Day. - Loka