Monks, Journalists decry Time Magazine’s cover portrayal of U Wirathu as Buddhist terrorist

Home Issues

Yangon, Myanmar -- July issue of Time Magazine has portrayed Myanmar Buddhist monk U Wirathu as a cover and labeled as “the face of the Buddhist terror” . It has been criticized by all level of facebook users with their point of views. Most of the people have felt that it was an insult to Buddhism. Based on public opinions, the comments have been made as follow:

<< Buddhist monk U Wirathu. Is he the face of "Buddhist terror"?

Kyaw Min Swe, Chief Editor of the Voice Daily 
I am not happy with Time’s cover story. It is inappropriate to label a person for religion. How much evidence do they have to prove that U Wirathu has been involved in violence? I do not agree with this matter. It doesn’t matter wherther I like him or not. It could impact on Myanmar and its religion how the Time’s represent that news. I think there is something behind the story. Neither does it meet journalistic ethic because it is using religion and violence together to damage a person’ dignity. It is absolutely not required to do that so. I don’t think I need to mention that Time is the world famous magazine.
Dr. Ashin Dhamma Piyaka, Information in charge of Buddha Sasana Ovada Cariya Acceptance and Preliminary Religious Talks

Myanmar has more than 500,000 Buddhist monks. Blame should not be put on the entire Buddhism. It is one sided story. History has it that Buddhism is a peaceful religion. Monks are committed to doing public well being as well as for the Sasana. The religion has been and will be peaceful.
Ashin Dayventa Bhivamsa, Sitagu
The scientist Einstein once said about Buddhism, if there was a religion that can bring the peace to world, it must be the Buddhism. So I do think I have to mention Buddhism as a peaceful religion. As monks are following the peaceful religion, they are peacefully minded.  There has been no violence made by monks. But they were killed and they were terrorized. The weapon of the monks is tolerance.  The Time magazine has accused U Wirathu as terrorist. Sitagu Sayadaw (Venerable monk Sitagu) said that U Wirathu is a person who desires to have peace. However the foreign media criticizes him.
Social activist Myint Myint Khin Pe
I was asked in an interview by French journalist that Most Myanmar people are accepting the violence or I accept the violence. I had answered I never accept any violence. The image of Buddhism will be protected by its own religion. To protect the Buddhism, every Buddhist should behave well in time. If not, Myanmar could be recognized as terrorist Buddhist country.
Hanthawaddy U Win Tin, the Veteran Journalist
It is terrible to use the word “Buddhist terror”.  I think international community may have sided with Muslims. “969” has appeared in Buddhist community as well. No one can deny that Muslims are usually extremists. They kill other people as well as their own. Now there could have been Buddhist extremists like 969 or U Wirathu. It is not a good sign. There can be conflicts among people and it should be solved in accord with rules and regulations. The violence was not solved with the rules and regulations and the problem was titled as religion issue which is getting bigger later on. Those who want to back track from the current political situation are taking advantage of the situation. Now it is even harder to solve the problems. It is terrible that the influential Time magazine wrote about the events in Myanmar by portraying Buddhist monk U Wirathu. The extent of the danger is bigger now. The response of U Wirathu and his followers and those who are against them will accelerate. So I think aggressiveness of both sides will get higher.
Dr. Myat Thu, Managing Directo of Asia Taw Win
U Wirathu’s love for his religion is too much. He is not insulting other religions so the statement of TIME Magazine is totally wrong. My opinion is the same as Sitagu Sayadaw.
When the Daily Eleven interviewed U Wirathu, he said that he is really surprised by the fact that he is dubbed a Buddhist terrorist.

“I won’t be shattered by attacking me like this. What I want to say is about comparing me with a Binladen of Myanmar. Binladen’s hands were bloodied. Mine are really free from impurity. Their example is like referring a lion to a fox. It was a very rude comparison. What we are doing now is for preventive measures. There is no means of attacking. America’s intrusion into Iraq was to its national security. We are enacting laws for the safeguard of our nation and our race. Does it mean that we are extremists? We gave sermons to love ad cherish our own religion and people. Do they mean we are terrorists? I have a video file about an interview with me in order to check if something fishy is going on. I am now planning to post on the internet the interview with TIME Magazine. They didn’t ask what they did and nor my answers. The photo they used made me look terrible,” he said.
Wanna Shwe of Islamic Religious Council (Headquarters)
We don’t like a person’s doing comparing to one religion. Similarly, in Islam, I don’t accept a person’s doing comparing a religion.

Dr. Than Htut Aung, the CEO of the Eleven Media
“Let me be clear, I don’t agree with the opinions of U Wirathu. We have different views. But neither do I accept Time Magazine's unfair portrayal.  For a Buddhist monk, he will always be regarded as a monk until he breaks the rules of the Sangha. I know it is not easy to become a patron monk at the Masoeyein Monastery.” I do not agree with religious involvement in the affairs of the judiciary, administration or legislation. Neither do I agree with Buddhist extremism or the anti-Muslim sentiments being spread by a minority intent on jeopardizing their social and economic affairs,” he said.

But as a journalist, I think Time Magazine's criticism is unfair and harmful to our religion and Sasana. Such acts can cause unnecessary conflict and will only serve to disrupt our fragile democratic transition. So I categorically oppose Time's story, Dr Than Htut Aung said. U Wirathu is being accused of inciting continuing clashes that broke out in Myanmar. Those clashes also happened at instigation of ‘969’ Buddhist groups.

View the original article here

Time’s cover epitomizes Buddhism’s failure

Home Opinion

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- Many never saw this coming, especially for those professing a faith which advocate teachings such that killing even a mosquito brings bad karma.

Buddhists the world over can only gasp with astonishment when Time Magazine decided to “honor” a Buddhist by plastering him on its hallowed cover. U Wirathu, a monk from Burma became that face, and together with it a headline that says “The face of Buddhist terror”.

“Buddhist” above “terror”. When and how did it come to this?

Many will decry this as a sweeping statement. Isn’t this merely a Burmese issue? Why tarnish all Buddhists when the problem is specifically Burmese and its perpetrator a twisted monk – who labels himself Burmese Bin laden - with mind engulfed in narrow nationalism?

And yet the crass labeling by Time magazine is sweeping. With its global outreach, that stigma will stay, whether Buddhists of Burmese origin or not.

Make no mistake. Wirathu is a nationalist. What he advocates is nothing more than nationalist ranting. As a monk however, his ranting carry consequences far beyond his “sermons”, especially when they are hateful and inflammatory.

His story bears the consequence of a failed political system, and local politicians who have failed to play their role constructively. As Burma experience upheavals while transforming itself from closed dictatorship to a more open form of capitalistic system, cracks in social harmony is bound to surface.

What’s unfortunate is that the faith which originated from Buddha is dragged into this imbroglio.

Burmese monks, being an integral part of society, have a history of commanding civil disobedience. In the 1930s, the Saya San rebellion against colonial Britain led to the massacre of 1,000 locals. The rebel leader, Saya San – an ex-monk – was later hanged. More recently, in 2007, the saffron revolution captured the world’s attention when thousands of monks led marches condemning Burma’s military junta.

Depending on which side you were on, the rebelling monks was regarded either as heroes (in the eye of the world against the dictatorial government) or troublemakers (in the eyes of the British). Yet, in those conflicts history have bestowed upon the monks as up-righting justice, rising up against all odds to face over-whelming tyranny.

At times Buddhist tenets were invoked, such as in the 2007 saffron marches when monks chanted the “Metta Sutta” (discourse on loving kindness) and invoke ideals of “ahimsa”, non-violence.

At no time were these conflicts deemed as “religious”.  Until recently, Buddhism as a global faith had escaped being branded as one which had been involved in “holy wars”.

Burmese nationalists may not agree, but once you license an extremist like Wirathu to stoke social tensions between groups of different faiths and advocating for violence against a specific religious community, there is no avoiding branding the confrontation as religious.

The question is how and why did it come to this? As a monk of 29 years, didn’t any of the Buddha Dharma ever rubbed into his consciousness?

How could he even utter hate filled speeches when every morning he dispenses the five precepts to devotees offering “dana”, two of which advocates the training to “abstain from taking life” and “false speech” (which includes lying, gossiping, harsh speech and defamation)?

The answer could simply be this: Buddhism has become culture and custom of a people, and the Buddha a mere symbol of faith of one who happens to be born into. When Buddhism is regarded as such, and when the community feels endangered because seen and unseen forces are perceived to be threatening their way of life, the response is only natural: fight back.

What is happening to Burma could also be seen in Sri Lanka where the Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist organization Bodu Bala Sena has organized various campaigns against the country's minority Muslim and Christian communities. Like their Burmese counterparts, they have said that their actions were needed to protect the country's “Sinhalese-Buddhist character”.

While blame could be portioned off to the British (of which both Sri Lanka and Burma were colonial states) for messing up the demography in the first place and leaving behind a messed up legacy, to subjugate minorities to violence demonstrates the failure of using Buddhist teachings to resolve issues.

In resolving Burma’s conundrum (and to a certain extent Sri Lanka’s as well), the Sangha needs to reaffirm basic Buddhist tenets, and implore followers to keep faith in the Buddha Dhamma. Blind nationalism without heeding the consequences of negative actions and bad karma will only bring destruction.

It will not be wise to allow sycophants like U Wirathu to create a Wahabbi like off-shoot while justifying it as some form of mutated Buddhist movement.

Great Burmese teachers such as Mahasi Sayadaw have taught and brought true Buddhism outside of Burma. It was Burmese masters who popularized Vipassana, which in turn spawned a revolution in mindful practices, especially in the west.

As such it is a great irony that Burma which is seen as one of the world’s great Dharma protector has produced a son so anti-thesis to its core philosophy and ideals.

Clearly, Buddhism’s transformative powers can only happen when the powers to be are inclusive, accommodating and open. This requires a stable polity, sustainable economic development, trust in the country’s constitution and the rule of law.

There is no short cut other than having all parties doing the right things right.

View the original article here