Misbehaving monks, and laypersons’ responsibility

I refer to the opinion piece titled ‘Tears of hypocrisy’ – a response by G.A. D. Sirimal in The Island of 01 March.

Referring to one of your previous editorials where you have raised the question as to why the Mahanayaka Theras wouldn’t care to rein in unruly monks, Sirimal wanted to know what happened to a resolution tabled at the 86th Annual General meeting of the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress in Kandy proposing the formation of a Sangharaja Mandalaya to hear complaints against the members of the Sangha. This forum was to be vested with powers to impose penalties on those found guilty and, if required, to expel the culprits from the order.

While this idea seems a well-meaning one at least at the surface, before trying out any solutions, one needs to dig deeper into the root of this multi-faceted problem to get a clear understanding of where the things have really gone wrong.

First thing to do is to reflect on the fundamental questions of “who a Buddhist monk really is or what sets a Buddhist monk apart from the rest of us?”. From what we could surmise from the Buddha’s original teachings, a Bhikku is someone who voluntarily leaves the worldly affairs to find a path of peace, essentially by cultivating a deeper understanding of how the human mind works. Such a person would deserve the respect and support from others, but if and only if they stick to that challenging path. This should essentially be the only basis of the respectful and supportive relationship the laymen might have with a Buddhist monk. In other words, it’s simply a social contract – not a legal contract – where respect or support needs to be earned by monks, just like in any other social relationship.

The sure and most effective solution to the issue of unruly or “un-Buddhist” monks lies not with any Sangharaja Mandalaya but with the laypeople themselves. It’s a matter of simply going back to the underlying social contract, the breach of which should mean ending the laypeople’s side of the bargain. It’s as simple as that. Why do we care to feed, house and respect anyone who is more concerned about sorting out worldly affairs than about their pursuance of the path of peace advocated by the Buddha?

Once the social contract between the laypeople and a monk ends, it should no longer be an issue or a worry for the laypeople as to what that monk is up to. Just as any other individual in the society, that monk should also be free to live in any manner of their choosing as long as the country’s laws are not compromised. For instance, someone wearing a yellow robe and drinking alcohol shouldn’t bother any layperson in the absence of any current social contract with that wearer. It shouldn’t be treated as a criminal offence either. However, driving while being drunk should be a criminal offence irrespective of what one was wearing at the time and should be dealt with strictly according to the law.

A wearer of any dress of any colour or form should also be free to earn money, participate in politics, engage in protests, jump over the walls, etc., as long as no law is broken. It’s up to the laypeople not to afford the respect and support they may otherwise deserve or demand. Our society is steeped in this tradition of respecting and supporting anyone who wears a yellow robe. This is partly the result of the society’s deep dependence on the ritualistic aspects that have crept into the popular Buddhist practice.

If we are to solve this problem of unruly and misbehaving monks, ending our social contract with them pronto is the easiest and surest way to achieve it. Once the laypeople have done their bit, the rest can be left for either the Mahanayakas or any Sangharaja Mandalaya to deal with as they think fit.

Upul P, Auckland.