A monk talks politics, architecture, sexuality and the Buddha

A.I don’t aim at delivering messages back and forth between east and west. I have always, and will continue, to make films whenever I have a sound story.

Q. You have been observing the development of politics in Bhutan since the Fourth King His Majesty announced the introduction of democracy. Now that there are reports of political corruption, coercion and bribery, do you think that we are treading the right path?

A. As Winston Churchill said, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

Obviously democracy has to be the right path! So many other nations in the world have chosen it. And I completely trust both His Majesty, the Fourth King’s decision to opt for democracy as our political path, and also the timing of his decision.

Q.You once said in an interview that a guru is someone who likes the same kind of pizza you do; that a guru is someone you can relate to. Against the backdrop of allegations of political corruption do you think that Bhutan’s new political experience lacks a ‘guru’?

A. I have also said that while the guru is someone you can relate to, he or she is also expected to be someone who is superior to you.

In Buddhism we have to search long and hard for our inner guru. Taking that as an example, we should do the same in the political arena, not only so that we can defend and promote our rights as individuals, but to be quite clear in our own minds about what our responsibilities are.

If you insist on having some kind of outer form of politician to look up to, there are plenty, for instance, Jyoti Basu, Manmohan Singh and Nelson Mandela.

Q. It could be argued that, broadly speaking, our political parties have nothing to differ about: everyone is standing for the same causes. Do you think this is true? And that, as a result, political campaigning will be based on personality, the self, and the ego?

A. I think everyone knows that Bhutan is and always has been unique, especially as far as politics is concerned. But also in terms of its pristine natural environment and its history.

For example, we have been continuously blessed by the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, as well as by truly great leadership. We’ve also been really fortunate never to have been the victims of natural disasters, like those in Bangladesh; never to have had any need for population control, like China; and never to have suffered from extreme religious differences, like the Middle East.

In a way, there’s never been any room for ideologies to develop. An ideology is only born out of a problem - when you have a problem you need to find a solution, and often that solution is found in an ideology. Ironically, the only serious ideological difference that we’ve faced is: should we institute a democratic system in Bhutan, or should we continue to enjoy the King’s leadership.

Whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate I don’t know, but I would say that Bhutanese people will have to practice the path of democracy based on personalities rather than issues for some time to come. And not just the personalities of the party leaders, but also local leaders.

Q. On the path to enlightenment, we Bhutanese spend a lot of money on erecting religious structures and supporting our ‘edifices of faith’, but we do not have a single old people’s home in Bhutan. What kind of response should we have to this situation, a political or a religious one?

A. This is both an important and a timely question.

Buddhism has always been praised and appreciated for its wisdom and related practice. Times have changed, though, and these days, most of the world makes judgments based on outer appearances and actions - one might say ‘performances’.

As a result, I think Buddhism will have an increasingly hard time convincing people that sitting in a cave and thinking about world peace could be of any benefit whatsoever to a country, let alone the world. Yet, it could be argued that if many of us were to do just that and follow a life of simplicity, from every point of view - politically, democratically and particularly environmentally - the world would be a much safer and more peaceful place.

Having said that, I would say that Buddhists like myself should think really hard about this issue and try to do something that is loud and visible, such as build a hospital or old people’s homes.

Q. You have admired that you admired Osho Rajneesh for having the guts to accept 93 Rolls Royces, because by so doing he was challenging the notion of what is it to be a spiritual person and shattering people’s perception about the dynamics of spirituality, while at the same time dismantling himself. Do you think that as a nation we should dismantle the ‘Shangri-la’ picture-postcard image of Bhutan that currently exists, by allowing our architects to be more creative and encouraging them to go beyond our monotonous concrete matchboxes for example, so that our young people will develop the courage to say that the essence and beauty of Bhutan is something far beyond its forests, prayer-wheels, dzongs and snow-capped mountains?

A. If I may correct you, it was 49 Rolls Royces!

Our perception of what ‘Shangri-la’ should be is always changing, and has been since time immemorial. The Shangri-la of a hundred years ago is not today’s Shangri-la.

Having said that, we as human beings tend to develop strong attachments to our old values, architecture, paintings and music. To a certain extent, such traditional values serve a useful purpose and promote social harmony - which is important both individually and especially when we have to live in a community - and often it’s these very values that act as a guiding light, or a reference point that keeps us safe, in the same way that railings at the edge of a precipice prevent us from falling.

I tend to agree with your insinuation about Bhutanese architecture. I sometimes feel it is a little odd that the Bhutanese put so much emphasis on a particular aspect of architecture, like the windows of a house, and then do something absurd like fit corrugated metal for the roof! I must admit that my own house has a corrugated metal roof. But at times, driving through Thimpu, all that corrugated metal makes you feel as though you are living in a temporary refugee camp somewhere in Afghanistan - especially when it’s not painted!

So, whoever else is also concerned about this corrugated metal roofing, I would like make a very strong request that you consider manufacturing a metal roof that matches the traditional design of the house. I’m sure there’s a way of doing it because I noticed in Sikkim that the traditional houses have roofs made of modern material shaped to match the traditional design. And since so much building is going on in Bhutan, someone could probably make a profitable business out of moulding traditional style roofing.

Q. Do you think that politics and spirituality are two different things? And do you think that monks and nuns standing in queues to vote would look ‘un-Bhutanese’?

A. Personally, I think the government’s decision to exclude monks and religious figures from the voting process is an excellent one. A democratic political system thrives on opposing opinions, and the practice of tolerance, non-violence and compassion isn’t likely to work well in a system of that kind. Moreover, quite a lot of problems in this world are created by religious people. So I think the government made a very wise decision.

For monks, lamas and religious people not to go into politics is one of the most significant kinds of political act; it will be of far more help to the country for religious people to stay out of mainstream politics than if they were to become fully involved. If lamas were involved in politics, it would ruin not only the secular system, but the Dharma itself.

I have to gather my courage here, because frankly, I would say that since the time the lamas took over government, Tibet simply didn’t work as a country. Involving religious people in the politics of a nation is a bit like trying to eat doma while also playing the flute: not only can you not play the flute well, but you can’t chew the doma properly either!

The lamas who were trying to rule Tibet failed completely in terms of taking care of their secular culture, like defense, the economy and international relations, probably because they were putting more effort into trying to be religious leaders. Sadly, though, they failed as leaders of religious institutions as well, because when you’re powerful you also become the object of jealousy, conspiracy and corruption. So in both ways they failed.

Q. Was not Lord Buddha ‘political’? Is not ‘the Middle Path’ a powerful political statement?

A. I think Buddha was a master of political philosophy and political science. It’s important to know that along with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Buddha was the one of the first to introduce the concept of ‘Sangha’, or ‘majority rule’. However, Buddha was definitely not a politician, and in fact, as you know, Buddha consciously and deliberately left his palace and kingdom. Broadly speaking, you can say that the Middle Path is the most powerful kind of political science.

Q. Sri Lankan monks play an active part in day-to-day politics; they help make and break governments. What do you think about monks having this kind of power?

A. Buddhism, unlike many other religions, does not offer guidelines about political structure. In fact, I must stress that Buddhism is like a science, and science is not a political tool.

But we must not forget that Buddhists are also human beings, in the same way that those who believe in democracy are also human beings and while in Bhutan religious figures are prohibited by the Constitution from taking an active part in the political process, just like the Sri Lankan monks, they will, consciously, or unconsciously, play a role in day-to-day politics. If they were to protest with violence, though, I would always strenuously protest against that violence.

Q. Being a spiritual figure, what is your take on the protests of the Burmese monks against the military junta?

A. Again, where the protests become violent I will always protest against them. Buddhism should never ring the crusader’s bell, or the bell of violence.

Q. You once said that the one question you have not been asked in an interview is, “Are you gay?” Can we ask you a question in the context of homosexuality being a crime in Bhutan according to the Penal Code. Is it a sin to be gay or lesbian?

A. Are you sure that homosexuality is a crime according to Bhutan’s Penal Code?

First of all, in Buddhism we don’t believe in sin. However, we do talk about ‘non-virtuous causes’ which leads to ‘non-virtuous effects’, such as pain. When we talk about ‘non-virtuous causes’, what we mean is any action that comes from anger, desire and ignorance.

Someone might be celibate for their whole life, but his or her motivation for being celibate is to be socially superior to all other human beings. Such a practice of celibacy motivated entirely by pride is one of the worst kinds of non-virtuous cause and effect. And in fact, this kind of person is missing a lot of hot and steamy experiences!

Generally in Buddhism, any act of desire, anger, jealousy, pride or ignorance, is either discouraged completely, or encouraged so that it can be transformed. If the act develops your desire, whether it is performed with a member of the same sex or of the opposite sex, it is equally unwholesome.

Source: Bhutan Times