Monks In Politics Should Avoid The Three Poisons

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –February 2, 2017

Shyamon Jayasinghe

Buddhist monks have by, now, been accepted or at least tolerated by our society as simultaneous political players. Soon after the assassination of SWRD Bandaranaike by a Buddhist monk and the revelation that high profile Sangha like Buddharakkita were behind the conspiracy, Sri Lankan society began to openly repudiate the very idea of the saffron community being seen on the political stage. Buddharakhitta’s incursion into the political power game is to-date regarded as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of Sangha involvement in the political power game in that it demonstrated graphically its absurdity and its danger. For many years after that tragedy, monks shunned the political platform. On the other hand, today Buddhist monks have re-emerged with the cloud of guilt blown away out off their halo.

The formation of an officially recognised political party for monks, the JHU, took place in the year 2004. The fact that the JHU or The National Heritage Party succeeded in winning as much as nine seats in Parliament became the signal of a general popular acceptance of a political landscape dotted by the Buddhist clergy. The JHU is still a significant force to be dealt with as its influence spreads beyond the numbers.

There isn’t any scriptural reference that can be interpreted as barring Buddhist monks from politics. On the other hand, Human Rights laws will frown on any disallowance of monks from political participation of any kind.

The issue is, therefore, not a legal one. The involvement of Buddhist monks in Parliamentary politics constitutes an unfinished item in religious discourse. Nobody can avoid politics but the question as to whether it is appropriate for a monk who by definition is a mendicant who has abandoned worldly life in favour of pursuing a spiritual attainment, can get embroiled in the power game that politics is, is still a valid question. Furthermore, the absence of a formally organised establishment that can make dictates to Buddhist monks has made political entry easy. This is unlike the Christian priesthood ,which does have a controlling body to exercise a code of organisational conduct. The Sanga, typically, is like the proverbial barber saloon where anybody can come in and go away.

The upshot is that we still do observe extreme cases of Sangha political behaviour displayed from time. We saw the BBS going on rampage burning Muslim places of worship and beating Mussalmen. Recently, we saw videos on social media where a monk in Batticaloa was castigating a Tamil Grama Sevaka in racial terms and jumping toward him to have a meritorious (or ping) go.

The general public expectation, particularly the response of the Buddhist public, is the only determining and restraining leach. This public expectation is that monks should conduct their political role unswerving in line with the spirit the spirit of the Dhamma. Unlike the lay adherence, the adherence of the Sangha is mandatory according to public opinion. This also is consistent with the general spirit of the Vinaya Pitaka that scripturally governs monk conduct. It is in this Dhammic spirit that Buddhist monks of the past were said to have advised Kings and so on. The ethical behaviour created a respected link between King and monk. That had been a healthy relationship and a productive one, too.

The fundamental Buddhist ethical admonition is that Buddhists (particularly monks) should avoid the three poisons of Lobha (greed), Dosa (hate) and Avijja (ignorance). Fundamental to the three is ignorance or delusion. Buddhist monks must at all times cultivate this three-fold ethic. They have a special responsibility to do so in their political role. Ordinary people do not expect monk-politicians to behave like greedy and lying secular politicians. The distinction in political role play is apparent. Verse 251 of the Dhammapada spells these three pegs of moral underpinnings:

Nathi ragas aggi (There is no fire like passion or greed)
Nathi dosasamo gaho (There is no grip like ill will or hate)
Nathi mohasamani jalam (There is no net like ignorance)
Nathi thanhasamana nadi (There is no river like craving)

The fourth line is an emphatic first line. The Buddha preached this in the Jethavanama Monastery.

Since the operative nature of greed and hate are typically hard to measure, we will focus on the fundamental poison or papa karma that is ignorance. Now, it is admitted that in the specific Buddhist context Avijja refers to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. However, we take the liberty to extend its application to all forms of ignorance. There is justification for this in that monks engaged in secular politics are expected to evince a critical sense and to make an effort to comprehend issues of the wider jurisdiction of a secular society if what they articulate is to be respected. Monks taking to politics, if they are to be respected as Buddhist monks, should be mindful of the truth of what they say. The public expect monks not to be foolish or superficial but to be endowed with truthful wisdom.

Read More