By Upali Gajanayake –

Upali Gajanayake

First Entrance

There are two global trends that are being observed in relation to Buddhist monks these days. The first of them is very interesting. The first of them is the Buddhist monk peace walk (Walk for Peace) that is going on in the United States of America. Vietnamese Buddhist monks are walking thousands of miles carrying the message of peace of the Buddha, are receiving the respect of the American public without any racial or religious discrimination.

And the second trend is the indecent propaganda campaign with a hidden or overt political agenda being carried out by a handful of monks in Sri Lanka. There is a distinguishable difference between the Buddhist monks engaged in the above-mentioned American Peace Walk and the Sri Lankan monks.

The difference lies not only in the purpose of the monks actions in the two groups, but also in their attitudes and behaviour, which are obviously distinguishable.

Second Entrance

The above introduction then leads us to a discourse by the Buddha. Let us listen to the Buddha.

chakkhunā saṃvaro sadhu – sādhu sotena saṃvaro

ghāṇena saṃvaro sadhu – sādhu jivhāya saṃvaro

kāyena saṃvaro sadhu – sādhu vācāya saṃvaro

manasā saṃvaro sādhu – sādhu sabbattha saṃvaro

sabbattha saṃvuto bhikkhu sabbadukkhā pamuccati.

(Dhammapada – Bhikkhu Vagga Gatha 361-2)

The above-mentioned Buddhist teaching from the Dhammapada states that; Right is restraint in the eye, restraint in the ear is right, right is restraint in the nose, restraint in the tongue is right. Right is restraint in the body, restraint in speech is right, right is restraint in the mind, everywhere restraint is right. The bhikkhu everywhere restrained is from all Dukkha (suffering) free.

Such recommendations would certainly be expected of monks who exemplify ideal behaviour in practice. In other words, according to Buddhist teachings, a virtuous monk is expected.

The term ‘sādhu vāchāya saṃvaro’ means that a monk should be restrained in the words he uses. But when looking at Sri Lankan society, even lay politicians do not make the kind of ill-bred statements that some contemporary political monks do. A monk at Mihintale displayed the most indecent instance of such bad behaviour.

When looking at the Buddhist order, such tendencies have emerged since ancient times. In short, many precepts were imposed during Buddha’s lifetime due to repeated breaches of expected monastic disciplines.

Third Entry

The emergence of abusive priests in religious institutions throughout history is not a rare occurrence. It is an undeniable reality for all religions. The topic of abusive behaviour by such religious leaders has come to the fore again in Sri Lanka with a powerful cabinet minister of the government adding the adjective ‘wild’ to a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk. The minister aimed his criticism at the behaviour of the monk in charge of the Mihintale Viharaya, a sacred place for Buddhists not only in the North Central Province but also in Sri Lanka as a whole. It is well-regarded as a historical and archaeological site in general. The minister directly stated that the behaviour of the monk was ‘wild’. (Those representing the minister argue that he did not make comments targeting the Mihintale monk due to political bias.)

The reason for this verbal altercation between a minister and a monk is not a matter of the Dharma. It is basically a statement made by the Mihintale monk regarding a term included in the education stream. The monk alleges that introducing a facility to access an inappropriate internet website in a textbook belonging to the new education stream will cause great harm. However, the monk has protested against the so-called website using obscene language that would be difficult to include even in an article of this kind. The minister’s criticism came after that.

There is a traditional view that monks have the right to instruct the rulers of this island, either through the Dhamma or by pointing out good and bad. Let us accept that tradition for a moment. But is the Mihintale monk’s comment an appropriate exhortation for a monk? The question is now being discussed by civilian society. It should not be forgotten in this discussion that Mihintale is a sacred place that is revered as the place where Buddhism was introduced to this island.

There are more than two hundred and twenty-seven (227) Vinaya rules that govern the conduct of Therawada Buddhist monks. There are numerous other guidelines that address how monks should conduct themselves in relation to lay followers. These make it clear that monks are expected to uphold standards of behaviour that are more exemplary than those required of laypeople.

Keeping that Buddhist ideal in mind, when listening to the verbal attack of the wildly insulted monk, it is clear that it is very much contrary to the monastic discipline. The monk proudly mentions with a smile on his face, a vulgar vocabulary that should not be used by a monk. Now, in response to the offensive reaction by the government minister, the monk has attempted to file a police complaint, calling it an attack on the entire Buddhist order, not just on himself. (He also says he is preparing to file a complaint with President Trump.)

This is not the first time a monk has behaved in this way. Not long ago, a monk was sentenced to prison for insulting the court by using obscene language. Another time he entered a meeting at a Colombo hotel and physically assaulted a monk who was holding opposing views. That monk is currently out on bail after being convicted for a second time on charges of racial incitement. A political monk who was participating in a protest movement slapped a police officer on the cheek, causing the senior officer’s official cap to fly into the air. Another monk in the group was caught on camera getting a tattoo on his arm, in violation of the monastic discipline. The late Minister Mangala Samaraweera referred to them not as true monks but as a ‘sect of yellow-colored monks’ (kahakada).

Fourth Entry

The political monk in Sri Lanka is no stranger to society. Since the days of the ancient kings, Sinhala Buddhist monks have intervened in politics in various ways. The Sri Lankan monks’ traditional political participation is discussed in the book ‘භික්ෂුවගේ උරුමය’ (‘Heritage of Bhikkhu’) published by Dr. Walpola Rahula Thero. In his research work ‘History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anuradhapura Period, 3rd Century BC – 10th Century AD’, Dr Rahula provides a lot of historical information for that monks’ political heritage. Contemporaries of Rahula Thero, monks like Udakendawala Siri Saranankara, Bambarande Siri Seevali, and Narawila Dhammarathana were also active in the freedom struggle in India. It cannot be hidden that those famous monks were active in politics. But the important thing that today’s monks should not forget is that those monks never went beyond the limits of monk behaviour and used inappropriate words. Or did not engage in inappropriate political activities. The ‘Vidyalankara Declaration’, a historical milestone in monk politics in Sri Lanka, is the glorious culmination of the work of those monks. The character of Udakendawala Siri Saranankara Thero, who was among those monks who was active in politics until his death, teaches a lesson about the behaviour that a monk should follow if he does politics.

I would like to present a political example set by Venerable Udakendawala Siri Saranankara Thero for the understanding of all monks involved in politics. Under Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake, who was in power between 1965 and 1970, the United National Party was defeated in three by-elections held on the same day for three constituencies (Balangoda – Bentara, Elpitiya and Bandarawela). The political defeat of Mr. Dudley Senanayake was reported as the main news in the ‘Attha’ newspaper the next morning under the headline ‘Dudley does not have all three(“ඩඩ්ලිට තුනම නැහැ”). Angered by that headline, Venerable Udakendawala Thero protested over the phone to the ‘Attha’ consulting editor, Mr. H.G.S. Ratnaweera. Thero’s argument was that reporting in such language was apolitical and inappropriate. The Venerable Saranankara did not stop there, and when he heard that the ‘Aththa’ editor B. A. Siriwardena and features editor Sirilal Kodikara, who were responsible for the headline, he came to meet the two giants of the media world (Siriwardena and Sirilal) in order to condemn their actions. As soon as they heard that the monk was coming, Siriwardena and Sirilal fled through another door and stayed in a tavern at Borella junction to pass the time. (This writer was informed about the incident by B.A. Siriwardena, the editor of the ‘Aththa’ newspaper and the newspaper’s feature writer, Sirilal Kodikara.)

Fifth Entry

Many Buddhist monks live modestly and devote themselves to the well‑being of the Buddhist community. Those who remain close to the people do not reside in luxurious mansions or travel in modern vehicles. Instead, they often carry out their duties by using public transport or walking from place to place. Their speech and conduct are humble and composed. They refrain from insulting others, avoid inappropriate language, and do not sing praises on political stages. They live in accordance with religious discipline.

Good behaviour is a common quality that society expects. The world‑renowned dog Aloka, who accompanies the monks participating in the American “Walk for Peace” receives admiration from people—without distinction between human and animal — because of its gentle and exemplary behaviour.

Even an animal is respected for its gentle behaviour, so monks in public life should also act with discipline, showing how calmness and restraint can have a meaningful impact.