Unorthodox Inquiries
Coming Soon…
“The laws that govern the monks’ organization were written before 1988, during a one-party dictatorship! In the Sangha organization, you cannot have different voices … everything comes from the top-down. If you say anything unorthodox, your writing will be censored.”
U Pandita’s story provides a remarkable lens into the intersection of spirituality, academia, and socio-political dynamics in Myanmar. In 1998, U Pandita left Myanmar to study Sanskrit in India. Upon returning, he spent a year overseeing a rural monastery before accepting an invitation to teach at the International Theravada Buddhist Missionary University (ITBMU) in Yangon. After a year and a half, he left again, this time to teach Pāḷi and to continue his academic pursuits in Taiwan. Eventually, he settled in Sri Lanka, where he resides to this day.
U Pandita explains that the monastic environment in Sri Lanka allows for freedom of expression, which he believes is essential for research, publication and a productive exchange of opinions. In contrast, he describes the monastic environment for scholars in Myanmar as rigid and intolerant, even punitive. Since his writings challenge orthodox interpretations of Buddhist commentaries, it could lead to severe repercussions for him if he ever returned there. He describes the stark choice that would await him: either publicly disavow all of his research findings as incorrect, or be forced to disrobe or even arrested. His dilemma reflects the precarious position of scholar-monks who challenge orthodox norms in Myanmar.
The monastic laws in Myanmar were established before 1988 during a one-party dictatorship. They impose a rigid hierarchical structure on the Saṅgha, a top-down system that stifles dissenting opinions and opposing views. Research, which also includes any publications, must pass through an oversight board, and anything deemed to be unorthodox is subject to being censored outright. U Pandita adds grimly that even during the period of semi-democracy under President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi’s governments, these strict laws governing the Saṅgha remained unchanged. He speculates that the civilian government’s reluctance to suggest any reforms stems from an unwillingness to interfere with monastic affairs, leaving change dependent on the senior monks in power—a group largely uninterested in altering a status quo upon which they sit at the top.
The structure of the Saṅgha further compounds the issue. It is an organization of abbots, where only senior monks from larger monasteries have a voice, and junior monks are excluded from decision-making processes. Senior monks with entrenched authority have little incentive to support democratic reforms within the monastic community. This centralized power dynamic has stifled initiatives for change and any dissenting voices. Senior monks also view the public airing of divergent views as a threat to the very unity of the Saṅgha, and which they fear might result in a schism—a concern not without precedent. The Buddha himself emphasized the dire consequences of creating discord within the monastic community. He described it as one of the gravest offenses that a monk could be charged with because a schism would disrupt the harmony essential for the Saṅgha's survival, weaken the faith of lay supporters, and obstruct the propagation of the Dhamma. The Vinaya Pitaka provides extensive guidelines for reconciliation and unity, underscoring the critical importance of preventing division. In U Pandita’s view, however, this concern has been taken to an extreme in Myanmar and used as a flimsy excuse to prevent self-examination or attend to areas where change may be required, while stifling critical thinking and questioning. Be that as it may, these restrictive laws remain on the books, and without changing them, conducting research on sensitive orthodox interpretations of the teachings remains illegal in Myanmar.
U Pandita further explains how the organization of the Saṅgha in Burma reflects—and perpetuates—broader, societal structures in Myanmar, in that they mirror a similar rigid, top-down organizational structure.. But just as broader, negative, social and political patterns are often replicated in individual institutions, he suggests that on the flipside, positive changes instituted within the Saṅgha could have a beneficial ripple effect on the political and cultural landscape of the country. In his view, the absence of democratic responsiveness within monastic institutions both stems from and significantly reinforces the country’s broader authoritarian culture.
One notable example of U Pandita’s work that could attract controversy is his paper published in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics (2011; 18, 125-144), titled “The Buddha and the Māgadha-Vajjī War.” It examines the Buddha’s encounter with the minister Vassakāra, who had been sent by King Ajātasattu to assess the Buddha’s position with regards to the King’s intention to invade and conquer the Vajjī Confederacy, which was a republic. In reply, the Buddha explained that because the Vajjīs adhered to his “Seven Conditions of Welfare,” a framework for maintaining an ethical society, they would continue to prosper and grow. In his paper, U Pandita argues against the traditional commentarial view, which is that the Buddha’s position was a purely moral one, focused on preserving the unity and strength of the Vajjis because they adhered to the Buddha’s “Seven Conditions.” U Pandita suggests that the Buddha’s stance may well have been more politically nuanced, while still not backing Ajātasattu’s warlike intentions. By intentionally choosing to publish his paper in an English language journal as opposed to in Burmese, U Pandita hoped to avoid attracting attention, and thus repercussions, from the Burmese monastic establishment.
Having spent over two decades in Sri Lanka, U Pandita has had ample opportunity to observe and compare the distinct cultural and religious dynamics of the two Buddhist-majority nations. For example, he notes that Sri Lankan Buddhist children are raised with strict adherence to nonviolence, and do not engage in activities like hunting and fishing, which break the Buddhist precept of refraining from taking life; in contrast, Burmese boys often do. He believes that this reflects a more relaxed approach to sīla—moral discipline—in Myanmar. U Pandita then speculates that there may be a connection between the prolonged conflict and instability in Myanmar and this historically more lenient approach to Buddhist ethics, as a manifestation of “collective karma.” He draws attention to Burma’s past, aggressive, military campaigns, particularly its repeated invasions of neighboring Thailand, as well as its prolonged internal conflicts, especially in ethnic regions. In other words, in his view, Burma’s past actions may have sown the seeds of discord that are now yielding karmic consequences.
Turning to the Burmese Saṅgha’s involvement in promoting nationalist and anti-Islamic sentiments, U Pandita critiques the military’s narrative of justifying its brutality under the pretense of “protecting Buddhism.” He dismisses this claim as a disingenuous excuse, arguing that it serves the regime’s agenda of consolidating power rather than reflecting a genuine concern for safeguarding the Dhamma. U Pandita highlights how the military’s actions distort Buddhist teachings, leveraging monastic influence to manipulate public sentiment and foster division. He points to the troubling exploitation of monastic authority as a political tool, which he argues fundamentally betrays the core principles of Buddhism. These practices, he asserts, not only sow discord but also undermine the Saṅgha’s moral integrity and erode the public’s trust in monastic leadership. By aligning itself with such exploitative tactics, the Saṅgha risks losing its spiritual credibility and failing in its duty to guide society toward peace and harmony.
He sadly acknowledges that the military coup has significantly impacted the Saṅgha and Buddhist traditions in Myanmar, particularly among the younger generation, many of whom are now losing faith altogether. He attributes this erosion of trust to the perception that senior monks have not adequately supported the people’s struggle for democracy in any real numbers, nor have they sufficiently recognized the oppression that their supporters face under an authoritarian regime. U Pandita is especially critical of monks who choose to become entangled in power politics, viewing this as a deviation from the Sangha’s historical role of maintaining a principled distance from rulers and authorities. Even more concerning to him are monastics who seek alliances with the military, arguing that such actions threaten the Saṅgha’s spiritual integrity and moral standing. In contrast, he praises respected figures such as Pa Auk Sayadaw and Dr. Nandamala for embodying higher principles, by not engaging with military leaders who seek to co-opt their influence. This steadfastness, he believes, is essential to safeguarding the Saṅgha’s integrity and ensuring its relevance in a society grappling with profound political and social challenges.
Returning to the topic of non-traditional opinions, U Pandita discusses another sensitive and controversial topic from his research: the Buddhist interpretation of sexual misconduct (kāmesu micchācārā). He has come to redefine this to mean any sexual act that is consensual, while not harming a third party... which diverges from the morally rigid, absolutist, traditional understanding. So he argues that practices such open relationships or homosexuality and prostitution are not by definition sexual misconduct, so long as they observe the above two conditions. (Interestingly, U Pandita views rape as a violation of the second precept [abstaining from taking what is not given] rather than sexual misconduct.)
It becomes a little more complex for U Pandita regarding cultural expectations. As an example, he cites the importance of parental consent in traditional societies; in other words, certain sexual acts might “harm” the parents and thereby constitute misconduct, even if the act is consensual. Yet in societies with different norms, the same act might not. This underscores U Pandita’s belief in the contextuality of ethical principles, contrasting with the universalist perspective often associated with the traditional Buddhist take on observing precepts.
Despite the possible consequences, U Pandita remains committed to his research, viewing it as a means to bridge the gap between Burmese Buddhism and Western academia. He notes that while Burmese meditation instructors like Mahasi Sayadaw have successfully introduced Buddhist practices to the West, academic Buddhism from Myanmar has yet to achieve similar recognition. U Pandita attributes this to the preservation-focused approach of Burmese monastic education. He explains, “Our masters might be very wise and very learned, but sooner or later they will die. So, we must inherit their learning.” By engaging in rigorous academic research, U Pandita hopes to contribute to a deeper understanding of Buddhism and inspire Western scholars to disseminate these teachings in their own contexts.
U Pandita shares the intriguing story of Pa Auk Sayadaw as a way to illustrate the intricate challenges and resilience required for monks to navigate both ethical and political obstacles in the hidebound landscape of monastic Burma, as well as how they can be overcome. Pa Auk, known for his distinct meditation methods, initially encountered significant resistance when he sought to publish his teachings. All religious publications required approval from the censorship office, which often entailed navigating a corrupt bureaucracy. Bribes were suggested as a way to circumvent these restrictions, but Pa Auk refused to pay them, leading to the outright rejection of his manuscripts. Undeterred, he turned to a Buddhist publishing house in Taiwan, which agreed to print and distribute his writings widely. Over time, Pa Auk’s renown steadily increased as a meditation teacher, and his publications were imported back into Myanmar. In this way, he managed to bypass local censorship entirely, for as Pa Auk’s reputation grew, even the authorities who once opposed his work found it politically advantageous to associate with him—rather than not allowing his books to clear customs, officials instead helped distribute them. This also shows the hollowness of Myanmar’s monastic censorship regime, as the superficialities of influence and fame can alter the whole equation.
U Pandita’s reflections extend to socio-economic development and Buddhism, addressing the claims of the well-known monastic, Thabarwa Sayadaw, that wealth and development weaken Buddhist traditions. U Pandita rejects the notion that poverty plays any role in preserving Buddhism, as he feels that the responsibility lies with monks to engage with changing societal conditions, and to offer relevant spiritual guidance in times of both prosperity and hardship. This nuanced perspective highlights the importance of maintaining an adaptable Sangha in any socio-economic context.
“Mixing with the government or meddling in power politics, this is only a later development during the military government,” U Pandita says, with an eye on the current developments back in his home country. “Traditional Buddhism in Myanmar doesn’t encourage monks to mix with the king, the ministers, or any political entity. We stay apart. If they come to the temple, they are welcome. If they donate, we accept the donation, and then they go back. That is all.”
If you found this interview of interest, here are some past episodes from our archive that explore similar themes:
· Bhikkhu Cintita shares that his journey from academia to Theravāda monasticism was shaped by his ordination under Sītagu Sayadaw, whose widespread influence in Myanmar includes significant social projects but also controversial stances on political issues. He reflects on the complexities of monastic leadership in navigating moral and ethical responsibilities, especially in the face of societal upheaval, addressing the broader challenges of maintaining integrity in Buddhism amid political pressures.
· Kyun Pin Sayadaw U Jatila tells of navigating the physical and moral threats faced by his meditation center during a military assault, emphasizing how Buddhist practice can withstand and challenge violence. His actions in resisting sustained days of attacks showcase how mindfulness and education can serve as tools for community resilience and moral clarity in the face of oppressive forces.
· Sayalay Chandadhika explains that her practice of mettā meditation, rooted in the teachings of renowned, Burmese teachers, provides a grounding force amid global displacement and personal suffering. She exemplifies the transformative potential of compassion, reinforcing the enduring relevance of Buddhist ethics.
· Ashin Kovida recounts his journey from a rural upbringing to a monastic and activist life, integrating teachings on democracy and human rights with Buddhist principles. His reflections underscore how spiritual and political awakening can converge to resist authoritarianism, while promoting universal values of justice and compassion.
· U Gambira says that his experiences as a monk, child soldier, and protest leader shaped his understanding of Buddhism’s potential to empower nonviolent resistance. He highlights how Buddhist principles like mettā and moral courage can mobilize collective action for democracy, bridging spiritual discipline with societal transformation. In his case, this manifested most profoundly in the leadership role he took on during the Saffron Revolution.