8/3/2019 1997 Posts

1/17

UNITY IN DIVERSITYAN APPROACH FOR THE UNIFICATION OF BURMA THROUGHELIMINATING GOVERNMENT'S "BUDDHIFICATION" POLICIES

Soe Lin PostIntroductionTraditional Buddhist cultural values stress the spiritual side of a person as well as the group towh ich he or she belongs. Personal grow th is alway s related to social well-being. A person istaught to respect other living beings, including animals and p lants. Personal achievement at theexpense of others is frowned upon. Exploitation, confrontation, and competition are to beavoided, while unity, commun ality and harm ony are encouraged.I learned all these Buddhist values as a child growing u p in Burm a. When I was a student in apublic elementary school in Burm a, my cu rriculum included attending a man datory bi-weekly"Buddha-Dharma Appreciation" course. In this class, I was taught how to read Dh arma (Buddhistdoctrines) discourses, chant prayers in Pali (the original language u sed during the time of theBuddh a), and understand Budd hist ideologies and ethics. Even as a youn g boy, I remem berhaving never liked attending that class for I always felt something w as wrong abou t it. Perhaps Idid not like the class because my teachers always separa ted me from my C hristian friend bysending him to the back o f the classroom; non-B uddhist students were also required to attend thisclass, but they all had to sit together in a designated part of the room far away from the Budd histstudents. Although these non-Bu ddhist students were barred from directly participating in thecourse with the Bud dhist students, they were, nevertheless, being tested on what had bee n taughtin class; they were required to know the discourses and the chan ts verbatim. It is quite scary tothink back and realize now that we w ere not even aw are of the practice of religious discriminationin Burm a's public schools. Wha t is mo re disturbing to me, however, is realizing that even thoug hI had learned from school these Buddhist principles which preach love and com passion for others,I was prejudiced against people of different social classes.Being brought up in a conservative wealthy family in Burma perhaps had something to do with myhaving had discriminating attitudes toward peo ple of the lower classes. At hom e, my family had agardener, a cook an d a driver, all of who m I treated as inferior to me beca use they were "m y"servants. Perhaps it was by coincidence that they we re all ethnic minorities and non-B uddhists,too. Thus, it was too easy for me to discriminate against them because m y relationship with themwas even more distant for I found virtually no cultural or class similarities between me and them.I know, how ever, that my fam ily did not directly teach m e to be p rejudiced against these people.So, I now question of myself how I had acquired these beliefs contrary to the Buddhist values thatI have been taught throughout my life both at home and at schoolto treat others non-discriminatingly with passion. Apparently, the "Buddha-D harma A ppreciation" class had failed toteach me to be genuinely com passionate to all beings. On the contrary, I now believe that, it wasmostly from the public education system and specifically from attending these Buddhistappreciation classes that I had learned to be prejudiced toward other people who were no n-Buddhists.Needless to say, I am n ot the only person w ho through attending these mand atory Buddhist-D harma classes, acquired discriminating attitudes toward non-B uddhists who w ere mostly the

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

2/17

POST35ethnic minorities. Today, I see more clearly than ever that the im plementation of the governm ent's"Buddh ification" po licies into the p ublic school system is a method to instill nationalistic feelingsinto the m inds of the children which then ultima tely results in m aking individuals who areintolerant to differences; I believe I was one of those individuals. Thus, a society that consists ofpeople intolerant to differences suffers from ethnic conflicts and national disunity Burm a is anexample of this unstable society.Realizing that `B uddhification" policies do not result in the unity of the nation but instead lead toethnic conflicts and prejudices toward non-B uddhist minorities, I advocate for the elimination ofthese policies. Hence, the purpose of my paper, in overly simplified terms, is to give myarguments against the government's "Buddhification" policies and in addition, give myjustifications for my claiming that if "Budd hification" policies were to be successfully eliminated,national unity would inevitably followthat there would be a "unity in diversity."In my paper, I explain, first, the governm ent's reasons for implemen ting `Buddhification" policiesand the conseq uences of these policies on Bu rma's ethnic minorities and non-B uddhists. Thegovernm ent 's imp lementation of `Buddh ification" policies was for i ts own benefit to gaincomplete control over society and to suppress oppositions. The governm ent, of course, claims that"Buddh ification" is used to bring unity in the nation. I believe that the method of "Bu ddhification"cannot make Burma become a unified nation because its objective was not, in the first place, aimedto unify the nation; instead, it was a cleverly disguised governm ent schem e to subjugate andoppress the ethnic insurgents. In addition, this method itself is a practice contrary to the Buddh istbeliefs because it never taught comp assion nor showed interrelatedness of all beings, but, instead,taught intolerance and separation between the m ajority and the m inorities. Thus, I claim in m ypaper that to create a politically free and peaceful society, the "true nature" of Bu ddhism m ust bereestablished Buddhification policies m ust be eliminated. I further claim that to successfullyterminate the governm ent's "Buddhification" policies, it is necessary to realize that this oppressivepolicy itself is contradictory to the traditional Buddhist beliefs; it violates the B uddhist law of"depen dent co-origination"' and fails show peo ple the interrelatedness of all being as a necessarycriterion for a peaceful society. I use D ogen's Zen philosophy of "time-being" to further explainwhat it means to h ave understanding of the interrelatedness of all beings.I am well aware that it is the nature of hum an-beings to be engaged in an effort to find and hold onto whatever they m ay define as significant in living. The capacity to envision goals and take thesteps to realize them may be one of the most distinctively human attributes. However, the'Masao Abe states: "the law of dependent co-origination' denies the self-existence and unchangeable substantiality ofeverything, including the divine or the holy, such interdependency and relationality are inconceivable withoutrecognizing the particularity or individuality of the elements, hum an or no n-human, w hich constitute thatinterdependency. Apart from the particularity or individuality of both sides of the relation, the very notion ofrelationality and `dependent co-origination' are not possible. An emphasis on the relationality without a recognitionof the individuality of the constituent elements will entail relativism which finally culminates in a nihilisticanarchism. This kind of relationality is static and m erely formal, and it thus loses the dynamism betweenindividuality and interdependency. H owever, if the particularity or individuality of either of the sides of the relationis substantialized or absolutized, the relationality or `dependent co-origination' will be destroyed. T he law of`dependent co-origination' is possible only when each element involved in the relationship has a distinguishableparticularity which is, however, non substantial. This means that, due to the absence of unchangeable substantialityor enduring selfhood, each entity is entirely interdependent without losing its ow n particularity. Accordingly, thekey point of the law of `dependent co-origination' lies in the realization of the absence o f unchangeable substantialityor enduring selfhood, that is, the realization of no-self wh ich is traditionally called anatm an." In M asao Abe, Zen andComparative Studies, ed. Steven Heine (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1977), 200.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

3/17

1 3 6NITY IN DIVERSITYsignificance people reach toward is by no means uniform. It changes with time and circumstance,and it follows from the human propensity to seek out different types of significance. Thesignificant may be material (e.g., a car), physical (e.g., health), social (e.g., intimaterelationships), psychological (e.g., meaning), or spiritual (e.g., closeness with God).Significance is not necessarily good, since it does not just allow people to pursue constructive(positive) ends, but also destructive ends.Thus, respecting the notion of individuality, I do not suggest in my paper that my idea of apeaceful nation would be Utopia, a society consisting of people with the same interests and samecultural, religious practices. What I mean, however, by "unity in diversity" is the preservation ofindividual interests along with the end of religious prejudice which I believe will ultimately lead toa realization of the interrelatedness among all people and thus toward creating a more peacefulsociety.

Political Instability and Ethnic ConflictsBurma is country of forty-five million people, over one-third of whom are ethnic minorities mainlyinhabiting the mountainous border regions. Burma was a kingdom until 1823, when the Britishcolonized the Southwest of the country. By 1856, the whole of Burma was under Britishoccupation and remained so until independence in 1948. Burma's first post-independencegovernment was elected, and it remained a democracy until the military took over in a bloodlesscoup in 1962. The military, in different guises, has ruled ever since. Immediately afterindependence, the Karen ethnic minority took up arms against the central government in protest atthe lack of constitutional provisions for self-rule in their state. The Karens were soon joined by theCommunist party of Burma, and, eventually, by the mid-1970s, nearly every major ethnic group inBurma was represented by armed groups. Civil war and ethnic strife has thus dominated Burma'shistory and have been the raison d'tre of the armed forces in its thirty-five years dominance of thecountry. Between 1962 and 1988 the military government, the State Law and Order RestorationCouncil (SLORC) adopted a policy of total economic and political isolation from the internationalcommunity so that their slaughtering of ethnic minority insurgents and violating of human rightscould not be reported to the rest of the world.

"Buddhification" as a Method to Control SocietyThe intimate connection between religion and social life, was discussed in Emile Durkheim'sElementary Forms of the Religious Life. Durkheim saw religion as a "unified system of beliefsand practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbiddenbeliefs andpractices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere tothem:"

A society whose m embers are united by the fact that they think in the same way in regard to thesacred world and its relationship with the profane world, and by the fact that they translate thesecomm on ideas into common practices, is what is called a Church. 3Moreover, Durkheim claimed that religion is needed to impress upon individuals the importantvalues that keep society together. I, too, see that "a [unified] society cannot exist except on thebasis of [a] certain measure of similarity in the interests of its members [and that] the existence of2 Emile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1 91 5), 62.3 lbid., 59.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

4/17

POST37the society is that the individual mem bers shall agree in some m easure in the values that theyrecognize."4Amon g the social institutions, Buddhism, like Durkheim's notion of the "C hurch," had the greatestpotential for creating an integrated Burmese society. In theory, when m en entered the sangha orthe monastic order, they all were one regardless of ethnic origin; hence, the sangha represented anideal model of a peacefu l society.W hen the authority of the SLO RC was threatened by the armed ethnic minority groups whodemanded constitutional provisions for self-rule in their ethnic states, the government quicklyfound a method to fight back against ethnic insurgencies. Their solution was "Buddhification," aseemingly peaceful plan to unify the nation by prom oting the sangha and spreading Buddhismacross the nation. Man y Burm ese cit izens w ere led to believe that "Bu ddhification" was thegovernm ent attempt to create an ideal society because the governm ent showed sup port to theSangha and prom ised its citizens that their vision was fo r a new un ited Burm a. Waiting for thegovernment's promised vision of a united Burma to come true, many people accepted theSLORC's unjust actions and its "Buddhification" policies toward the ethnic minorities.H ence, I believe the SL OR C knew quite clearly from the beginning that `Buddhification," thepolicies for national unification, would give them the justification for implementing their cruel anddiscriminating actions toward the non-Buddhist minorities. The SLORC' s policy of promotingBuddhism as an essential facet of being a "true" Burman has led to discrimination against non-Buddhist citizens on ethnic and religious grounds, and in some cases to forced con versions. InRangoon, for exam ple, the government has destroyed M uslim cemeteries to m ake way for cityprojects, and confiscated M uslim orphanages, old people's homes, and mosqu es. Muslim leaderswho com plained have been jailed. The SLO RC 's discrimination and violence against Mu slimRohingyas in Arakan S tate resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring into Bangladesh.In Chin State, the military has forced villagers to remove crosses from hilltops and to replace themwith pagodas. Christians, too, according to news reports, are being forced to convert toBuddhism . The SLO RC has lured Chin children from their Christian parents with promises ofeducation in Rango on. When the parents tried to contact their children or find information aboutthem, they w ere denied all access. Later they discovered that instead of h aving been placed inschools as promised, their children had been put in Buddhist monasteries.

Open Discrimination Against Ethnic M inority G roupsThe ope n discrimination against the ethnic mino rity groups in ma tters of culture, education,language and religion is the most disturbing evidence of a long-term policy of "Budd hification" orthe so-called "Burmanization," 5 carried out by all governments since Ne Win's take-over in 19 6 2.Cultural discrimination against ethnic m inority groups runs counter to the con stitutional rights ofevery cit izen in B urma to freedom of speech, association, language, education and religion.Despite the impo sition of one-party rule in 1 96 2, equal ethnic, religious and cultural rights werestill guaranteed under the 1 97 4 Constitution. Ho wever, the governm ent has violated all thesefundam ental huma n rights. Newspap ers, schools and universities have been shut dow n at the firstsign of protest. Entertainers, politicians, monks and students wh o are suspected o f participating in4A. R. Radcliffe-Brown. Taboo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 93 9), 21 .5 The term "Burmanization" means the same a s "Buddhification." "Buddhification" policies are directed towardunifying a united country where everyone is forced to believe in the Buddhist doctrines. Hence, "Buddhification" is"Burmanization."

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

5/17

138NITY IN DIVERSITYanti-government activities are either put in prisons, tortured, or have been killed. 6Burma disappeared behind a wall of secrecy under Ne Win's regime. Public signs of Burma'smulti-cultural life were largely limited to folk dances and national costume parades. Ethnicminority clubs and associations were discouraged, and the "Burmanized" culture of Ne Win's"Burmese Way to Socialism" became the only real national cultural expression allowed. Thenational press, which in the 1950s had been regarded as one of the most diverse and liberal inAsia, suffered particularly; in 1962, there had been over 30 daily newspapers, including 12 inminority languages; by 1988, there were six, none in a minority language. Under the SLORC,censorship restrictions on Burma's cultural life have been tightened even further. Now, there isjust one national daily paper, the state-owned New Light of Myanmar, which acts as a mouthpieceof the government.?A subtle mixture of discrimination and laws controls all literature and expressions of ethnicminority cultures. Ethnic minority writers and teachers who oppose government restrictions orencourage expressions of cultural identity and the use of their own languages have facedconsiderable harassment and even been imprisoned. 8

Just how the SLORC's new restrictions will affect Burma's ethnic minorities in the coming decadeis impossible to gauge, especially as they run alongside the SLORC's frequent promises tointroduce multi-party reform. But far from restoring cultural and ethnic rights, many minoritycitizens fear that army hard-liners are simply planning to extend "Burmanization" even furtherunder the new guise of the SLORC's "Myanmar" identity for the country.Perhaps the most difficult question relating to cultural rights in Burma today is that of religiousfreedom. Following Ne Win's seizure of power, all foreign missionaries were ordered out ofBurma and, in keeping with the tenets of the "Burmese Way to Socialism," all non-Buddhistreligion-based schools and education were barred. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, constantsurveillance was kept on the country's Buddhist monks, historically a potent force for politicalchange, and a number of leading activists were arrested in periodic clamp downs. Other religiousgroups were treated with equal suspicion and severity. 9Furthermore, preservation of national identity is another excuse the government uses for theirimplementing "Buddhification" policies. The SLORC officials claim that the main threat to Burmais coming from "decadent Western culture" which, they say, is completely contrary to Burma'shistoric, "Buddhist culture." Major-General Myo Nyunt, the Rangoon commander exclaims:

We cannot allow our national culture and religion, which w e have safeguarded since the timeimmem orial, to disappear during our time. 1

Buddhism BetrayedThe manipulations and the abuses on Buddhism began with Ne Win, who seized power in amilitary coup in 1962. He recognized early that Buddhism, because of its independent nature and6 M artin Sm ith. Ethnic Groups in Burma: Development, Democracy and Human Rights (London: Anti-SlaveryInternational, 199 4), 104-1 05 .7 Ibid. (I also want to m ake it very clear that these statistics come from M artin Smith's research.)B I b i d .9 Ibid.1 0 Ibid., quoting Rangoon Home Service Radio, June 1, 1991.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

6/17

POST3 9because of B urmese m onks' traditional involvement in po litical affairs, was a g rave threat to hisdictatorial rule. Nihar Ran jan R ay, in his history of Theravada Buddhism in Burma explains thepower of San gha in Burma: " It would be a sad m istake to suppose that the Buddhist monks o fBurm a live an isolated and self com placent existence. Indeed nothing cou ld be further fromtruth.... In fact the sangha consti tuted an essential elemen t by far the m ost effective andpowerful element of the entire social fabric of the peoples of Burma." 1 1Through m ilitary propaganda and media cam paigns, Ne Win found ways to defame the sangha.Monks who were believed to be critics of the military government were disrobed and imprisonedfor alleged murder and cannibalism. Some were arrested and sentenced to death for alleged rape;some w ere charged w ith gambling and illegal possession of narcotics. In sho rt , Ne Win attemptedto defame the Sangha by lying to the public with exposing alleged unethical practices of the monksand their alleged breaking of the "five precepts." 1 2 In 1965, when monks refused thegovernm ent's attempt to gain control over the sangha at Hm awbi, Ne Win arrested more thanseven hundred monks. Som e were sham efully abused and imp risoned. 1 3"Buddhification" policies were not working according to plan for the government. The Sanghaonce again was becom ing more pow erful than ever. Hence, the government, fearing the loss ofabsolute control over the nation, in 19 90, passed a new religious law (no. 20/9 0), which stated thatthere should be only one Buddhist organization in Burma with nine legally approved sects. TheSLO RC , presenting itself as the preserver and the p rotector of Burmese culture, includingBuddhism, make a cruel mockery of that pious facade through its propaganda, laws and actions. 1 4This military dictatorship in Burma has from the beginning tried to associate itself with Buddhism,seeking control of the sangha to use it for its own dubious and cha uvinistic purposes. Whe n Iwent back to Burma in the winter of 1996 , I saw, like Kawasaki had described, almost every dayon television, the mem bers of the SLOR C ostensibly performing pious acts and mak ing grandioseofferings, such as T V s and refrigerators, to senior mon ks and important m onasteries. They try tocreate the image of themselves as devoted B uddhists by frequently giving dharna (offering) andpaying respect to the monks.M embers of the SLO RC would be m istaken to believe that giving dharna (offering) and payingrespect to the mon ks would mak e them look like devoted Buddhists. Everyone in Burma kno wsthat to be a Buddhist one must take refuge in the T riple Gem, Buddha (the Teacher), Dhamm a (theTeaching), and S angha (the O rder), and to accept the five precepts: to abstain from killing, toabstain from stealing, to abstain from adultery, to abstain from lying, and to abstain from takingintoxicants. According to the Buddhist Relief Mission reports, the SLORC has failed to keep anyof these precepts they have broken all of them: in carrying out its campaign of terrorism, theSLORC has ruthlessly killed thousands of people in Burma and massively stolen from them; rapeis used as m ilitary strategy; lying is official policy in pu blic addresses and through the state-controlled media; and there is incontrovertible evidence that the SL OR C both prom otes and profitsfrom sales of narcotics. Moreover, the following report by the Buddhist Relief Mission, revealsI IN. R. Ray, A n Introduction to the Study of T heravada Buddhism in B urm a (Calcutta: University of C alcutta,1946) , 269.t 2Five precepts are to abstain from killing, to abstain from stealing, to abstain from adultery, to abstain from lying,and to abstain from taking intoxicants.1 3 Visakha Kawasaki, Th e A lmsbowl Rem ains Overturned: A R eport on SL OR C's A buses of Buddh ism in Burma,(Buddhist Relief M ission: Nara, Japan, 199 7), 8 . (I do not know if Kaw asaki's report has been published as a bookor an essay. I attained this report as an electronic mail sent from the United States D epartment of State.)14lbid.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

7/17

1 40NITY IN DIVERSITYthe SLORC's slaughtering and torturing of monks and its abusing of the religion:On August 8, 1990, in commemoration of the second anniversary of the democracy uprising, morethan 7,000 monks and novices walked through the streets of Mandalay, solemnly and peacefullyaccepting the alms from the people. Soldiers confronted the monks and opened fire, killing twomonks and two students and wounding seventeen others. One novice disappeared. Following thismassacre, the Monks' Union (Sangha Sammagi) of Mandalay declared pattam nikkujjana kam m a,"overturning the bowl" against the military. This refusal to accept alms is used as a rebuke to laypeople. According to Vinaya, the rules of conduct for Theravada Buddhist monks, a laypersonwho has committed any of eight offenses should be ostracized. The eight rules are: striving forthat which does not gain, striving for that which does not benefit, acting against a monastery,vilifying and making insidious comparisons about monks, inciting dissension among monks,defaming the Buddha, defaming the Dharma, and defaming the sangha, the order of the monks. Ifa layman acts in any of these ways, the sangha should refuse all contacts with him.The powerful religious boycott, which began in Mandalay, spread across Burma, causing alarmand trauma to the ruling SLORC. By October, the religious sanctions against the military familieshad reached the nation's capital, Rangoon. Throughout the country, the monks were refusing almsfrom military personnel and their families and refusing to attend religious services organized bySLORC. Although the purpose of the boycott was "compassionate, to help the evil doers to repentof their deeds, to forsake their wrong ways, and to return to the true path," the military leaders didnot accept the reproach. 15 Chairman of the SLORC, Saw Maung, declared that their actions werecompletely justified and that they were "not afraid of going to hell." 16SLORC retaliated against the monks' boycott by staging a massive clamp down on the sangha.Armed troops surrounded more than 350 monasteries trapping a total of approximately 3000monks and novices inside. Water, electricity and communication were cut. No one in themonasteries was allowed to leave; monks were prevented from going on their daily alms round.After one week, the soldiers entered the monasteries and arrested the head monks and other monksfor the alleged possession of anti-SLORC literature. In a crude attempt to smear the sanghamovement, some monks were even charged with gambling, illegal possession of heroin, and rape.The persecution of monks and desecration of monasteries and pagodas have continued unabatedthroughout Burma.l 7

Early Attempts to Achieve "Unity in Diversity"Between 1945 and 1947, Aung San guided the destiny of the nationalist movement and thepeaceful struggle for independence. In doing so, he contributed to the nation's thought and helpedshape the nation's institutions. Aung S an fought to establish an independent Burma and to includeall the ethnic minorities in the new state. In his B lueprint f or a Free Burm a, Aung San combined amixture of nationalist, communist, and parliamentary ideas. He called for equal economicdevelopment and simultaneously independence for all ethnic groups as the best way to bring thecountry together. However, although he publicly recognized the historic independence of severalminority groups, he believed only the Shan could be properly classified as a "nation." Othergroups would receive only varying degrees of regional autonomy; to qualify for full "nationalminority rights," he followed Stalin in suggesting that they should form at least ten percent of the1 5 lbid., 2.1 6 Ibid.17Ibid.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

8/17

POST41population. 18 Aung San's philosophy of "unity in diversity" was a promising method to build anindependent nation of Burma. Unfortunately, his solution to build a peaceful nation was neveractualized, when in 1947, he was assassinated at the moment when Burma was about to achieveindependence. When Ne Win took power in 1962, Aung San's philosophy of "unity in diversity"was discarded and replaced with Ne Win's "Burmese Way to Socialism" policy. Ne Win, bycontrast, believed that the military was the only institution that could hold such an ethnicallydiverse country together.

Aung San Suu Kyi's Notion of Unity in DiversityThe greatest threats to global security today come not from the ec onomic deficiencies of thepoorest nations but from religious, racial (or tribal) and political dissension raging in those regionswhere principles and practices w hich could reconcile the diverse instincts and aspirations ofman kind have be en ignored, repressed, or d istorted.. .. Diversity and dissent need not inhibit theemergenc e of strong, stable societies, but inflexibility, narrowness and unadulterated materialismcan prevent healthy growth. 19

Aung San Suu Kyi is well aware that Ne Win's "Burmese Way to Socialism" and his"Buddhification" policies to unify Burma by eliminating differences and preserving popularideologies could not work. She saw that the nation, on the contrary, fell apart as a result. Tired ofseeing the country falling into ruins under Ne Win's oppressive regime, she persuaded Burmesecitizens to begin revolting against the government, demanding a new constitution and freeelections. In 1988, when the government did not give in to the people's demands, violence brokeout in the nation's capital, Rangoon, as well as across the nation. In the midst of the violence,people looked up to a new leaderAung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the late Aung San, whopromises the people "unity in diversity" for peaceful Burma.Like her father, Aung San Suu Kyi had confidence in the philosophy of "unity in diversity" forbuilding a unified nation. She delivered a speech at a meeting held at a pagoda in Myitkyina,Kachin State, on April 27, 1989, which reflected the very philosophy of "unity in diversity,"calling for the need for solidarity among ethnic groups:

We of the N ational League for De moc racy believe very strongly that all ethnic groups in thecountry work together. It is in trying to help bring together all ethnic groups, all peoples, that wego on to these organizational tours and try to visit as many places and possible. In the Kachinstate, there are many different peoples. Because of this ethnic variety, I think that you alreadyknow what problems there are in creating a unified country, what problems must be overcome.We must all work together if we are all to live together in unity and harmony. I don't think I needto tell the people of the K achin state how im portant it is for us to be broad-m inded and observan tto good political values. We must have as our goal the building of a real lasting Union. Onlyafter building this Union can w e really work towards pea ce and prosperity for all. We m ust allsacrifice our own needs for the needs of others. Without this, it will be impossible to build thekind of Union that we need. 2 0

In her speech, Suu Kyi stirs up the Kachins to be politically involved. Political participation, toSuu Kyi, seems essential for the elevation of the ethnic minority groups. She sees that in areas

18 Smith, Ethnic Groups.1 9Ibid., quoting Aung San Suu Kyi's speech, Towards a True Refuge, delivered at the text at the Joyce PearceM e m o ri al Lecture, Oxford University Refugee Studies Programme, May 1 9, 19 93 .20Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear and Other Writings, ed. Michael Aris (New York: Viking, 1991). Thisquotation is a speech given to the public in Kachin State on April 27, 1989, translated from Burmese by ThantM yint-U, and Lewis Woodworth.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

9/17

142 UNITY IN DIVERSITYwh ere people dare to be p olitically active, they are enjoying m ore rights. Hence , increase inpolitical participation is directly related to the increase in political and hum an rights. To Suu K yi,to be fearful is to accept opp ression. Thus, if one w ants democracy, one needs to show morecourage; by courage, she m eans doing wha t one know s is right even if one is afraid.In addition to encouraging people to participate politically as a means to elevate the position of theethnic minorities, Suu Kyi also recom mends changing traditional Burmese fam ilial practices. InBurm a, she claims, people have a tendency to use threats in the raising of children. She asks theadults to stop treating children with intimidation; children are threatened to do or not to do by theadults rather than being explained to them w hat is right and what is not right. The kind of teachingby intimidation is so prevalent that the rulers who govern the people do not try to ex plain things tothe people, but instead use threats to control them. 21Suu K yi believes that children's minds a re like clean slates. Hence, it is the responsibility of theadults to raise them and educate them so that the children will not be divided because of religious,linguistic and ethnic differences. Furthermore, she asks that children be taught to understand theidea of the "U nion." "F or them to l ive together in harmony they m ust be taught from earliestchildhood the concept of national unity, of nationhood:" 22

From my earliest childhood, my mother taught me this idea of national unity; not by merelytalking about it but by including it in everyday work. For example, we always had people fromvarious ethnic groups living with us. At the time, my mother was working with nurses. Nursesfrom all over the country would come to Rangoon to attend classes on child care. She wouldinvite those from ethnic minorities to stay at our home. Since my youth, then, I was taught tolive closely with people from other ethnic groups. In this way we need to give thought to ethnicgroups other than our own. We need to show sympathy and understanding. Without this,progress for the country will be impossible. 23

In order to have u nity in diversity, Suu K yi says, people should give up the attitude of "I amKachin," "I am Burmese," "I am Shan." Instead, they must have the attitude that they are all onepeople in the struggle for demo cratic rights. People m ust all work closely together like brothersand sisters. Only then will people succeed. She further claims that, if people divide themselvesethnically, they shall not achieve democracy for a long time because as long as races are separatedthere can be no unity.Suu Kyi's solution for u nity in diversity through asking for active participation in the nation'spolitics and education of the young to "und erstand the notion of the Union ," is only effective to acertain point. To complete the goal building united Burma the "true nature" of Buddhism mustalso be revealed. Buddhism, having the therapeutic powers to help people cope w ith stress andpersonal problems, should not be thought of as merely a religion. Instead, it should also berevealed that Buddhism is a way of life, providing means to achieve unity.Even if the government continues to require children to attend "Buddha-Dharma Appreciation"classes in public schools, the teachers must make sure that the children understand that they are notbeing forced to blindly believe in these Buddhist doc tr ines. The non-Buddhist students should notbe separated from the rest of the Buddh ist students. To do this effectively, the teachers m ustclearly tell the students from the beginning that B uddhism d oes not need to be though t of as just areligion, but rather as a universal way of life; the children, therefore, mu st understand one d oes21 1bid.22Ibid.23lbid.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

10/17

POST43not have to be a Buddhist to experience the Buddha-Dharma. 24 Since Buddhism teaches theuniversal way of life, 25 it's doc tr ines must also be comprehensible to a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian,an Animist or even an atheist. I will show that Buddhist philosophy teaches all people, regardlessof what their religion may be, that there is "unity in diversity"that all beings are interrelated.Buddhist Notion of Religious Liberty

Some Weste rn scholars say that Buddhism is a tolerant religion. Strictly speaking, however, withBurma as an example, this statement does not hit the mark of Buddhism. The term tolerance is acounter-concept of intolerance which implies active refusal to allow others to have or put intopractice beliefs different from their own. Since Buddhism is not a monotheistic religionfor it isbased on the realization of the suchness or as-it-is-ness 26 of everything in the universein24What is Buddha-D harma? "To a nswer this question, words are not always needed or altogether adequate. One m ayanswer the question by lifting one's finger or pounding on a desk with one's fist or just by maintaining perfectsilence. These are non-verbal answ ers . . . --the true expression of that which ultimately resides beyond words andintellectual analysis." (Abe, Zen and Comparative Studies, 25 )Abe states, the closest verbal term of this word is perhaps the "right" way of life; living in reality or the moment;realization of the imperma nent nature of reality.25 Universal way of life usually refers to Buddha-D harma and living an ethical life.26 "Tathataor suchness. Whe n everything is grasped in terms of `dep endent co-origination' and thus is understood tobe without enduring selfhood, the situation is very different from that in monotheistic religion. In monotheisticreligion, everything is understood, for instance, to be a creation of the One Absolute God, the creator. In this case,everything or everyone in the universe is equal before G od, and, at least in Christianity, the resurrection after death isa resurrection in the form of a spiritual body ... which is the transformation of the physical body without the loss ofidentity: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you which you have from God?' (ICor. 6:19).The individual is not absorbed in the divine at death but continues to be the same individual preserving hisor her identity in a different mode. This is because Spirit is the principle of individuaalization. Unlike Judaism andIslam, Christianity has a unique doctrine of resurrec tion in which distinction and identity of an individual person gotogether. In Christianity, however, this togetherness of distinction and identity is supported by the Holy Spirit ofthe One G od. Accordingly, howeve r dialectical the relationship between distinction and identity may be, it isunderstood or believed in within the framework of the One God, who calls people into fellowship with God. Thisimplies at least the following two points. First, since the relationship between distinction and identity is realized interms of the One Absolute God, who calls people into fellowship with God This implies at least the following twopoints. First, since the relationship between distinction and identity is realized in terms of the One Absolute God,both distinction and identity, strictly speaking, are not fully or thoroughgoingly grasped as such. Both distinctionand identity--and their dialectical relationship--can be thoroughgoingly realized only by breaking through the absoluteOneness of God. Second, in Christianity, the dialectical relationship between distinction and identity is applied onlyto a human being, not to the individual things in the universe. The second point relates to the first point.In this regard, Buddhism diverges from Christianity. In Buddhism, in which the One Absolute God isabsent, not only all persons but also all things in the universe are thoroughly realized in such a way as to maintaintheir particularity or individuality without any transcendent, one absolute principle; yet they are realized to becompletely equal in the sense that regardless of their distinction all are equally and respectively grasped in theirparticularity or in their as-it-is-ness (suchness). For instance, an oak tree is thoroughly an oak tree and a pine tree isthoroughly a pine tree are eq ual in their distinctiveness; yet an oak tree and a pine tree a re equal in each one 's beinggrasped in its own particularity or in its own suchness. A fish is thoroughly a fish and a bird is thoroughly a birdin their distinctiveness; yet, a fish and a bird are equal in terms of one's being grasped in its as-it-is-ness. Again, Iam re ally I, and you are really you, with regard to our particular individuality; yet, you and I are equal in that each ofus is realized in our own individuality and in our own personality....Accordingly, tathata or suchness (as-it-is-ness) includes complete distinction and complete equality, fulldistinctiveness and full sameness, dynamically and without contradiction.... This dynamic relationship betweendistinction and equality stands not only to human persons but also more universally to nature and God as well. Such

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

11/17

144 UNITY IN DIVERSITYBuddhism active refusal of allowing o thers to have beliefs different from one's own is absent,while the positive recognition and approval of others' beliefs in their different modes isencourage d. I believe Budd hism canno t be defined by the term tolerant and intolerant in the non-Buddhist sense because it stands on a dimension transcending the duality of tolerant and intolerant.The tolerant attitude of Buddhism is nothing other than an outcome of Buddhism's morefundam ental attitudes of suc hness or "a s-it-is-ness." In this connection, one m ay distinguishnegative from positive tolerance, the former referring to the non-Buddhist sense, the latter referringto the Bu ddhist sense. Since the realization of eve rything's suchness or as-it-is-ness is itself theBudd hist faith, the deeper the Bud dhist faith becom es the more tolerant the attitude toward otherfaiths. In Buddhism, deep faith and true tolerance do not ex clude one another but go together.This fundam ental attitude is applied not only to d ifferent beliefs within Budd hism but also todifferent views and beliefs of non-Buddhist religions and ideologies. 27The basic Budd hist attitude toward different beliefs within Budd hism is not to reject, denoun ce, orpunish them as heresy, but rather to evaluate them critically as different views and to subsum ethem into its own doctrinal system:

He resy is primarily a Western Religious concept: there is no exact Buddh ist equivalent. Thenearest approximation is ditthi, literally a view, usually a `wrong' view, that is due not to reasonbut to craving or desire. The most serious form of ditthi is to assert the reality and permanence ofthe individual human ego, i.e., the assertion of atman. Since the Western concept of heresyimplies an orthodoxy capable of denouncing heresy and willing to do so, the approximation ofBuddhist ditthi to Western heresy here c omes to an end, since Buddhism has no authoritativehierarchy, and no sacramental sanctions. Even the most serious forms of ditthi, assertion of realityof a perm anent individual human `self,' was m aintained by certain Buddhists known as Pudgala-Va dins. They were regarded by all other Buddhist schools of thought as weaker brethren, and inerror: but they maintained their existence and monastic institutions; as late as 7th cent. CE,Pudgala-Vadin monks amounted to about a quarter of the total number of Buddhist monks in India.One the w hole, the attitude of other schools seem to have been that m ore prolonged m editationwould eventually cause them to see error involved in this view, and its abandonm ent. 2 8

In sho rt , there is nothing Buddhist about the SLO RC's `Bu ddhification" policies.The Buddhist Notion of Identity

Furthermore, another reason for why I do not believe that `Buddhification" policies could actualizea peaceful united Burm a is because they fail to show the T raditional Buddhist notion of "self," aknowledge prerequisite to seeing the interrelatedness of all beings.Self, in Buddhist philosophy, is not an independent, self-existing, enduring, substantial entity.Nevertheless, because we human beings have self-consciousness and a strong disposition towardself-love and self-attachment, we often reify it as if it were an indep endent, endu ring, substantialentity. Self-centeredness is simply an outcome of this reification or substantialization of the self.Buddhism emphasizes that this reification of the self and its resultant self-centeredness are the roota dynam ic relationship is possible because the O ne Absolute G od is absent, and everything--including nature,humankind, and G od--is realized without independent enduring selfhood or fixed unchanging substance." (Abe, Zenand Comparative Studies, 200-202)27lbid., 203.28 Ling, T. O. "Heresy" in A Dictionary of Comparative Religion, ed. S. G. F. Brandon (New York: CharlesScribner's Sons, 1970), 324-325, quoted in Abe, 204.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

12/17

POST45source of evil and human suffering. Accordingly, as a way of salvation, Buddhism teaches thenecessity of realizing the non-substantiality of the self, that is, of realizing no-self or anatman. 29Masao Abe states clearly that the Buddhist notion of no-self, however, does not preclude humanselfhood in the relative sense. It is undeniable that we come to a realization of the "self-identity" ofourselves through memories from our childhood and through interaction with friends and otherfellow beings. I am I and not you; you are you and not me. Hence, there is a clear distinctionbetween self and the other and, thereby, a clear realization of self-identity or selfhood. Thequestion in this regard, however, is whether this self-identity or selfhood is absolutelyindependent, enduring and substantial. The answer must be "no." For there is no I apart from youjust as there is no you apart from I. As soon as we talk about I, we already and categoricallypresupposes the existence of you and vice versa. Accordingly, although we have self-identity in arelative sense, we do not have it in the absolute sense. The notion of absolute self-identity orsubstantial, enduring self-hood is unreal, conceptual construction created by human self-consciousness. Buddhism calls it Maya, or illusion, and emphasizes the importance of awakeningto no-self by doing away with this illusory understanding of the self. 3 Once we awaken to our own "no-selfhood," we also awaken to the no-selfhood of everything andeveryone in the universe. In other words, we awaken to the fact that, just like ourselves, nothingin the universe has any fixed, substantial selfhood, even while maintaining relative selfhood. So,on the relative level, we all have our own distinctive selfhood; yet, on the absolute level, we haveno fixed, substantial selfhood, but rather equality and solidarity in terms of the realization of no-self. Accordingly, from an absolute standpoint, we can say that, because of the absence of thesubstantial selfhood, I am not I, you are not you; thereby I am you and you are me. We aredifferent relatively but equal absolutely, interfusing with one another, even while maintaining ouridentity. 31

Realizing the Interrelatedness of All BeingsI have claimed that "Buddhification," itself is an oppressive policy that is contradictory to thetraditional Buddhist beliefs because it does not show the interrelatedness of all being, but ratherjustifies separation and intolerance of differences. Traditional Buddhist doctrines state that allbeings ought to co-exist in peace. In order to bring peace, thus, it is essential to understand firstwhat it means by "interrelatedness of all beings"which is quite similar to the notion of no-selfnature, the non-egotistic individualwhich I have explained earlier.Unlike monotheistic religions, Buddhism does not talk about the One Absolute God who isessentially transcendent to human beings. Instead, it teaches the Dharma, which is pratitya-samutpada, the law of "dependent co-origination" or conditional co-production; it emphasizes thateverything in and beyond the universe is interdependent, co-arising and co-ceasing: nothing existsindependently or can be said to be self-existing. Accordingly, in Buddhism everything withoutexception is relative, relational, non-substantial, and changeable. Hence, Gotama the Buddha, didnot accept the age-old Vedantic notion of Brahman, which is believed to be ete rn al, unchangeablereality underlying the universe. For the same reason, Buddhism does not accept the monotheisticnotion of the Absolute God as the ultimate reality, but advocates sunyata (emptiness) and tathata29 Abe, Zen and Comparative Studies, 209.3 0 Ibid. (For efficiency and convenience, I have paraphrased this passage without changing much of M asao Abe'swords. He h as explained the concept q uite clearly and I want to maintain authenticity.)3 1 Ibid. , 211 .

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

13/17

1 46NITY IN DIVERSITY(suchness or as-it-is-ness) as the ultima te reality. 32It is believed that the divine or the holy does not exist by itself, independent of and transcendent tothe human or the secular. Just as the human does not exist apart from the divine, the divine doesnot exist apart from the hum an. Therefore, the divine and the hum an co-arise and co-cease and areentirely interrelated and interdependent. Hence, the divine which exists by itself, or the God whoexists alone would be considered in Buddhism to be an unreal entity. Again, "one" does not existapart from the "many" just as "many" is inconceivable apart from the "one." In reality, "one" and"many" always co-arise and co-cease. 33In Buddhism, therefore, the ultimate reality is neither the divine God who is absolutely one norhuman beings who are multitudinous, but rather the relationality or "dependent co-origination" ofeverything, which includes the intentionality between the one an d the man y: 3 4

Know that in this way there are my riad of forms and hundreds of grasses throughout the entireearth, and yet each grass and each form itself is the entire earth. The study of this is the beginningof practice.When you are at this place, there is just one grass, there is just one form; there is understanding ofform and no-understanding of form; there is understanding of grass and no -understanding of grass.Since there is nothing but just this moment, the time-being is all the time there is. Grass-being,form-being are both time.Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is leftout of the present moment. 3 5

In the passage, Dogen reveals two things: the notion of time, 3 6 and the nature of "dependent co-origination"the intentionality between the one and the many. Furthermore, he is claiming inreality that there is unity in diversity. In Buddhist philosophy, the universe is by nature c onsidereda unified field of existence, hence every existing being must be part of the universe. But, Dogen'sradical claim is that the individual incorporates the entire universe. Hence, the individual himself isthe "m yriad" of existing entities; he is the representation of the notion of unity in diversity.I agree with Masao Abe that, from the Buddhist perspective, human conflicts and human inducedsuffering derive from ignorance of this law of "dependent co-origination" and the resultant self-centerednesswhich is one's failure to see reality as incorporation of all beings. Self-centeredness, as I have mentioned earlier, is an outcome of reification or substantialization of theself. Buddhism emph asizes that this reification of the self and its resultant self-centeredness are theroot sources of evil and human suffering. Accordingly, as the way of salvation from humansuffering, Buddhism emphasizes the necessity of awakening to the law of "dependent co-origination" by breaking through the ignorance innate in hum an ex istence, that is self-centerednessand attachment to anything, divine or human. Above all, those forms of attachment which3 2 bid., 198-199.3 3 Ibid., 197.3 4Ibid.3 5 Dogen, Eihei, "The Time-Being" in M oon in a Dewdrop: W ritings of Z en M aster Dofen, ed. Kazvaki Tanahashi(New York: North Point Press, 1985), 77.3 6D ogen holds a traditional Buddhist view of time, that it is not regarded as an objective entity or independent realityapart from our own consciousness. Nor, is time regarded as an abstract category with which we measure the durationof various objects. To Dogen, time is realized in and through the realization of the impermanency of everything inthe universe, especially through the realization of our own living-dying. Time is thus understood by Dogen alwaysto be inseparable from things as ever-changing. There is no time apart from all beings in the universe.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

14/17

POST47absolutize the divine or the holy as something substantial, self-existing, eternal and unchangeablemust be overcome or deconstructed. Hence, awakening to the law of "dependent co-origination"indicates awakening to the original nature of everything in the universeand that awakening issimultaneously the awakening to one's own original nature or one's own true Self, for, without theawakening to one's own original nature, awakening to the original nature of everything in theuniverse is not possible. 3 7In short, Buddhism fundamentally does not discuss a personal God, divine revelation, prophets,or salvation through faith; rather, it affirms the law of "dependent co-origination," self-awakening,the practice of meditation, and the emancipation through non-attachment. Hence, Buddhism maybe considered as a "way of self-awakening" or "way of the true-self."Understanding all this about the Traditional Buddhist notion of "self' and interrelatedness of allbeings is necessary for the building of a truly peaceful nation. In the following section, I claim thatmerely intellectualizing one's understanding of "self' and interrelatedness of all beings alone wouldnot be sufficient in order to actualize unity in diversity. Actualization is achieved through one'spractice and actions. Hence, one must build this unified nation with one's own effort. Merelywaiting for the good to come would not result in anything. Unity in diversity must be striven forthrough hard work.

Unity in Diversity Achieved Through PracticeIf people are righteous and m indful, using enlightenm ent as guidelines for their way of life, theycan ach ieve the de sirable society. O B hik kus, in the city of V aranasi there would be a kingdomnamed Ketumati, which would be prosperous, wealthy, and highly populated, with an abundance offood. O Bhikkus, in this land of Jambudvipa (India), there would be 84,000 cities which wouldtake Ketumati as its model and the guide. A righteous Universal Monarch would be born in thisK ingdom , and the peop le would live in peace and justice throughout th e earth. 38

Many Buddhists presume that this kind of ideal state is impossible in our own era, but will comeabout during the time of Maitreya, the next Buddha. However, just waiting for things to happenwill not result in anything productive. Work is required in order to establish a unified, ideal state.That is why in Buddhism, it is often reminded that practice is required for the attainment of theenlightened state. Merely intellectualizing the Buddhist doct ri ne without practicing it would beinsufficient for the actualization of Buddha's teaching and creating a possible ideal state. Likewise,practice is meaningless without the understanding of the true nature of Buddhism. For example,anyone is capable of writing a book on "How to Become a Great Tennis Player" by reading otherrelated sources or interviewing the great tennis players. This writer, however, cannot everbecome a great tennis player himself by merely understanding the way to become the best. Tobecome a great tennis player, he must actually play tennis and apply what he has written andlearned from his book. Likewise, Buddha Dharma must be understood and lived.I believe that blindly believing in karma as one's own fate and believing that every moment inone's life is dictated by karma is analogous to the writer who believes that he could become a greattennis player just by intellectualizing what it is to be the best player.Having one's life dictated by karma is like waiting for things to happen without trying to make3 7 Abe, Zen and Comparative Srudies, 200-203.3 8 Sulak Sivaraksa, Seeds of Peace: A Buddh ist V ision for Renewing Society, ed. Tom G insburg (Berkeley, CA:Parallax Press, 19 92), 1 1 0, quoting Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

15/17

148 UNITY IN DIVERSITYthings happe n. In short, people fall too easily into believing that karm a is the main d ictatingelement in their lives which ultimately leads to more suffering. For exam ple, in Burm a, manypeople tolerate abuses of the government by telling themselves that the cause of their suffering is aresult of their past actions which they have no control over; "I suffer because of my karma," peopleoften say.I would suggest that having the right understanding of the notion of Karma is necessary for theproject for unification. In other words, one should not simply accept that one's suffering iscom pletely determined by K arma. I t would also be a m istake to think that "Bud dhification"policies will create a peacefu l nation. To have "un ity in diversity" one m ust strive for it; that is,one must attempt to understand the interrelatedness of all beings and must show genuinecompassion towards others; one must be willing to help others unconditionally; one m ust not beafraid to be involved in the politics and practice w hat one believes is right; above all, one needs tobe righteous.

Deconstructing Boundaries: Realization of Unity in Diversity

Lastly, I want to claim that to successfully reach toward a g oal, one must overcome boundaries andbarriers which prevent one from reaching toward that goal. Som e argue that there cannot be peacein the world because everyone is different and each individual has goals different from others.Since no o ne is striving toward a single goal, we will never be able to realize global peace. So memay argue with the same reasoning that unity in diversity may not be achievable. Those who saythis are afraid of going beyond m an-made barriers that are preventing the individual to see theinterrelatedness of all beings, and to ex perience re ality as field of infinition, w here virtuallyanything can happe n. Unity m ay seem as though it is at the opposite end from diversity. But thefact is that they share the same pole, or to say it differently, they are the two sides of the same coin.Hence, to actualize "unity in diversity" one m ust transcend man-made boundaries.Rea lity could not have an y boundaries because it is in a state of fl ux an d is open to infinitepossibilities. Even w hen w e look at everything around u s, in our phenom enal world, we find thatnothing is permanent. Even the universe is said to be ex panding incessantly. The universe,therefore, has no bo undaries; it is, instead, open-end ed and infinite. Likewise, even the sm allestbiological elements, the qu arks, move u npredictably in various directions within an e lectron whichitself moves in infinite paths w ithin the nucleus of the ce ll.Human beings attempt to find ways to comprehend better what would be otherwiseincomprehensible. Rules and boundaries are created by us to bring some order an d to givemean ing to things, phenome na, and events. For exam ple, the books in the library are arranged by"call numbers" wh ich correspond to the subject of the book. Suppose, the books in the librarywere rearranged, random ly placed in various shelves, it would take us weeks to find the book thatwe are looking for. Fengshui, the art of placing things practiced in the Far East, goes further bysaying that our lives are dictated by the way we place ou r possessions. For exa mple, having aturquoise object in the northeast area of the house brings success, while having a mirror at the footof the bed brings bad luck.Do things really have their proper place in the universe? The an swer is, no. I have said earlier thathum an beings created boundaries to impose some m easure of order onto what would be chaos tous; hence, we are trapped inside our ow n confines unable to see reality, interrelatedness of allthings, and "unity in diversity." We m ust realize that boundaries are only constructions and knowthat anything could happen in reality.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

16/17

POST49ConclusionWithout going so far as to designate Buddhism as the state religion, the SLO RC has enacted a clearpolicy to promote Bud dhism in B urma, both in order to enhance the legitimacy of the m ilitarygovernment and to forge "national solidarity." Thus, while Buddhist monastic schools have beengreatly encouraged, especially in ethnic minority areas, there are no Christian m iddle or highschools, and in many areas unofficial madrasahs (M uslim scho ols) have either been closed orprayers within schools have been prohibited. Thus, the SLORC policy of promoting Buddhism asan essential facet of being a "true" Burm an has clearly led to discrimination against non-Buddhistcitizens on ethnic and religious grounds.The gove rnmen t recently passed a new law that permitted the right to worship freely and professreligious faith. Despite the new law , howev er, there have been indications of an increasinglyintolerant attitude by the government tow ards the ethnic and religious minorities.Burm a's principle political problems, nam ely, internal peace, dem ocracy, rights or nationalequality, self-determination for the ethnic nationalities, and establishment of a genuine federalunion, has not been resolved. The U nion of Burm a still lacks peace and stability. The refusal ofthe SLO RC to resolve questions of the rights of nationalities and de mocratic freedom, which a rethe two p rinciple political problems, has raised tensions and worsened the situation in the country,day by day. Bru tal suppression of the ethnic nationalities by armed might is still continuing.I have claimed in my paper that "unity in diversity" cannot be achieved as long as the governm entcontinues to implement the `B uddhification" policies. The governm ent's "Buddhification" policieshave not been eliminated the promises of establishing a united nation have merely been em ptywords. Traditional Buddh ist notions of social order and social justice still have not been realized;people are still trapped inside the bou ndaries they have c reated for themselves that are p reventingthem from experience reality; people still do not see the interrelatedness of all beings; people stilltake a dualistic nature of the phenomenal world to be real; people still believe that their suffering isinevitably caused by their karm a. It is not so hard to see w hy Burm a continues to suffer fromconstant political upheavals and ethnic conflicts. Eliminate `Buddhification!"

REFERENCESAbe, Masao. Zen and Comparative Studies. Ed. Steven Heine. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress, 1 997 .D ogen, Eihei. "Time-B eing." In M oon in a Dew drop: W ritings of Z en M aster Dogen. Ed.Kazvak Tanahashi. New York: North Point Press, 198 5 .Durkheim , Emile . Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New Y ork: Free Press, 191 5 .Jackson, Peter A. B uddh ism, L egitim ation, and Conf lict : Th e Political Functions of Urban Th ai

Buddhism . Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1989.Kawasaki, Visakha Th e A lmsbowl Rem ains Overturned: A Report on SL ORC's A buses ofBuddhism in Burma. Buddhist Relief M ission: Nara, Japan, 1997 .Ling, Trevor Oswald. B uddh ism, Im perialism and W ar : Burm a and Th ailand in Modern History.Boston: G. Allen & Unw in, 19 79.M atthews, Bruce. "Buddhism U nder a M ilitary Regime: The Iron Heel in Burma." A sian S urvey33 (April 1993 ) : 408-23 .M ydans, Seth. "Exiles Adrift: Nowhere to R un, Nowhere to H ide." New Y ork Times, 23February 199 6 , late New Y ork edition, A4.Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Taboo. Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity Press, 193 9.

8/3/2019 1997 Posts

17/17

1 5 0NITY IN DIVERSITYRay, N. R. An Introduction to the Study ofTheravada Buddhism in Burma. Calcutta: University ofCalcutta Press, 1946.Silverstein, Josef. "Change in Burma?" Current History 94 (December 1995): 440-443."The Idea of Freedom in Burma and the Political Thought of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi."Pacific A ffairs 69 (Summer 1996): 211-228.Sivaraksa, Sulak. Seeds of Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society. Berkeley, CA:Parallax Press, 1992.Smith, Donald Eugene. Religion and politics in Burma. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton UniversityPress, 1965.Smith, Martin. Ethnic Groups in Burma: Development, Democracy and Human Rights. London:Anti-Slavery International, 1994.Suu Kyi, Aung San. Freedom from Fear and Other Writings. Ed. Michael Aris. New York:Viking, 1991.Tambiah, Stanley J. Buddhism Betrayed? Religion, Politics, and Violence in Sri Lanka.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.