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.
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
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
1 comment:
It is time for Sangha community to reactivate Malaysia Buddhist Sangha Council or set up a similar organization.
Currently, I am the committee member of many national organizations. There is one serious short coming of these organizations.
During meeting, most of the time these ‘senior’ ‘highly respectable’ committee members would remain silent in highly sensitive and important issues. They prefer to remain silent until someone speaks up first. Thus, they all involve in ‘you look at me, and I look at you’ situation. It end up young turk like me always speak up first then they jump in.
I sincerely hope that our senior and highly respectable Buddhists would speak up.
Thanks.
Yours in Dhamma,
Bao Kiew Wu
Post a Comment