Modes of Teachings and Practices of the Theravadins in Indonesia

Since 2000, as I was ordained as an upasika, I began involved in several activities of a cetiya and a vihara, which in turn made me to be the member of a vihara’s committee and teacher at a Buddhist school belongs to the Theravadin. I live in a small town in Central Java, located approximately 90 kilometers from the magnificent Borobudur temple. In Solo or Surakarta, the name of the city, there are one big vihara and several smaller viharas. Different activities that taking place in the big vihara, Dhamma Sundara, are weekly puja and meditation, Buddhist day festival ceremonies (four times a year), pattidana (yearly), vihara’s birthday celebration, Dhamma class (twice a week), Sunday school for children, and, occasionally, marriage ceremony, and we also take part in inter-religious dialog of the local religious communities. There is no bhikkhu resides in the vihara due to the limited number of bhikkhus in the Theravada tradition in our country (approximately 50 bhikkhus spreading out in many provinces), although, sometimes we do have a bhikkhu spending his three-month vassa in our vihara. In such occasion we have opportunity to learn about Dhamma and meditation. The situation is even less fortunate in smaller viharas where there are no regular Dhamma discussions given by bhikkhus or experts in the Dhamma (bi-weekly or monthly), while the Buddhist festival ceremonies are not always attended by bhikkhus. In the capital city of Indonesia, Jakarta, and in a few other big cities like Medan in Sumatera, Surabaya (East Java), Semarang and Yogyakarta (Central Java), and Bali will have more chances to have Dhamma talks or discussions. All activities that include Dhamma sermons or discussions are very important since through the sermons and discussions people will receive messages carried by our spiritual leaders and teachers.


I gathered my materials from attending Dhamma discussions and seminars and other occasions in which Dhamma sermons are given, reading any topics covered in Buddhist teachings in published books, magazines, and discussion posted in websites of the viharas affiliated to the Theravada, or recorded in cassettes or CDs, VCDs, and also Dhamma sermons in the television programs. My observations directed me to a conclusion that all the topics and contents covered in the materials are centered in spiritual cultivation of an individual. Any discussions or questions raised by the audiences directed to, i.e. the issues of corruption, collusion, and nepotism (known as KKN in Indonesian, which stands for Kolusi, Korupsi, Nepotisme as the diseases spreading out among our government officials), robbery, theft, suicidal, murder, and the issues of environmental degradation, would be directed to individual affair. Someone’s greed, someone’s ill-will or hatred, and someone’s ignorance are the sources of all evils and suffering. Discussions almost never addressed the evil of the institutions and the operating systems behind the problems. Moreover, they often failed to recognize and analyze the complexities and interconnectedness of many aspects contributed to the situations.


Sermons or speeches always preach that any evil speeches, thoughts, and deeds should be avoided through keeping the silas (pancasila for the laities), practicing meditation in daily basis and developing wisdom; these have been the fundamental teachings to Buddhists. In response to the environmental devastation, we, Buddhists, are advised to be more compassionate and wiser in treating their environment. Human greed has caused to the destroying of our ecology; illegal logging practices and forest burning are but individuals who become the slaves of their egos; the government officials who conspire with criminals to sell our forests are the victims of their own greed and delusion, and so forth. Overall, the general themes presented in the discussions are based on cultivating individual piety.


Services performed by the Theravadins include religious services (pattidana, give blessings (marriage, childbirth, opening new house, store, school, etc.), blood donation, various acts of charity (both to the sangha and the needy), free medical services, humanitarian aids (sending logistics to the tsunami, earthquake, flooding victims, etc.), building viharas, the involvement of some bhikkhus and laypeople in inter-religious dialog, and more. Even though we do take part of these occasions, but the functions of viharas should be broadened to reach the unsolved social problems. Such temporal activities seemed to have not touched the very roots of the problems, i.e. corruptions, poverty, gender inequalities, human rights, political injustice, and so forth.


The majority people of my country has been suffering from a multi-crises since 1998, with the falling down of the New Era (the Soeharto regime) and the beginning of the Reformation Era. In response to these crises, we, Theravadin Buddhists, so far, have not had strategic agendas to address the severe problems in meaningful ways and in the long. I was wondering if our passivity is after all, inspired by the teaching of “it is better to remain passive or silent (not doing something) than creating trouble, if one is not capable of contributing something to help.” At a glance, this advice seems to be wise enough; it will keep one from doing things that will make worse the situation. But it can be mistakenly understood as an advice to avoid troubles that can bring suffering. This manner is in contrast with, i.e. encouraging people to actively and creatively doing something that benefiting oneself and others. Also, stay out of trouble or avoiding oneself from evil deeds, suggesting again, passive notion, rather than pushing people to take the risks to approach and fix the problems. There is nothing wrong with this teaching, but my question is, is that only that we can do amidst our severe condition in Indonesia? Are not we supposed to do the best efforts we possibly could to alleviate the suffering of our people?

It is quite surprising that recently I encountered a speaker, a former monk who received a Bachelor degree in Buddhist Studies and an MA in Comparative Religious Studies, giving a Dhamma talk proposing a Buddhist social ethics and giving reflections on what have we done and should we do as the Indonesian Theravadins to optimizing our participation in alleviating the suffering of our society. He recommended Buddhists in Indonesia to be more aware of poverty, education, cultural, religious and ethnic conflicts, even political issues we are facing. Dana or charity should now be more directed to build schools to lift up Buddhists’ educational level in Indonesia and to provide skill to the children who have been drop out from the school due to economic difficulties. The increasing number of the poor should be responded wisely since what they need is food, cloth, shelter, education, and other basic needs in the first place, and not listening to the preaching of the Dhamma. The issue of gender inequity is probably most rare topic to discuss in any discussions and writings; however, the speaker was eloquently advocating the lack of concerns of the Theravadins in addressing gender issues.


One of our best commodities after gas is migrant workers. Many women and girls are sent abroad to Saudi Arabia, Korea, Japan, Egypt, Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, yet there is not strong law enforcement to guarantee the wellbeing of our migrant workers. Many of them have been abused sexually, physically, and psychologically, and no doubt some of them are Buddhist women; but sadly, there is no concrete actions being taken to stop this, even from the initiative of the Theravadins. As far as the recognition of the roots of the problem is concerned, I never heard the Dhamma discussions analyzing the situation so as to pointing out the dirty system and some government officials involved in the nepotism. Rather, greed and ignorance of the villagers are always blamed as the cause of their decision to work as migrant workers. This point of view is but to ignore the interconnectedness of different of factors (politics, economy, and social, i.e. human rights, etc.) that force our people to leave their homeland for the sake of a better life.


Reflecting on the Theravadins in Indonesia: Are We Socially Engaged?


As I previously said that I could accept almost all the analysis and answers offered in the discussions or sermons and writings, but my conviction to the approaches and answers have been shivering. I accepted that problems are created by individuals, and the needed actions to fix the mess are also taken by individuals; this is the only possible way to do. The reason behind the idea is that we are not able to change other people or the situation outside ourselves. We will suffer more if we cannot accept that life is suffering, that what we want is not always being fulfilled. It is a matter of choice: we want to suffer, or we want to be peaceful, everything is on our mind. Deitrick quotes Andrew Olendski’s analysis in his Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction movement:


. . . But how we respond to this experience, to what extend
we succumb to the motivation to pursue pleasure and avoid
pain by clinging in various ways – this is the crucial point at
which it is determined whether we suffer, or claim our
freedom to simply be aware of our experience in all its
natural diversity. It is in this sense that the expression is used
by a number of modern meditation teachers, “Pain is
inevitable, but suffering is optional.”


Our awareness in perceiving and responding to any uncomfortable and comfortable feelings and events are the determining factor of our own wellbeing. Whether we choose to be peaceful or suffered; everything is on our own decision. This notion has been carried out on and on in response to different subjects.


I am borrowing Deitrick’s analysis that the issue lies in the way Buddhism understands suffering. In his own words, “suffering is a psychological state brought on by individuals’ attachments; it is not the direct and necessary result of the external conditions, but rather the result of the manner in which those conditions are responded to.”4 If this interpretation is correct, then it might explain the Theravadins’ manner in viewing our everyday’s problems. No matter what you do, external causes or factors are impossible to change. So why would we want to live in such terrible condition? The life itself has already given us much pain, why would add unnecessary suffering as the result of our way of responding to the horrible situation? Moreover, karma is sometimes offered as the first tool to evaluate what we have been doing resulting in the present state.


Blaming others is considered to be useless and counterproductive for it is not benefiting ourselves and it is dangerous to looking into the external causes and not critical enough to our own flaws and weaknesses. On the one hand, this argument is appropriate to remind us who are often busy criticizing other while ignoring our own stupidity and passivity. But on the other hand, too much directing attention to ourselves and not paying attention to our circumstances will also reduce our critical ways of looking at suffering created by, for instance, political injustice or structural poverty. I think, avoiding ourselves from doing unwholesome deeds are not powerful enough to change the devastated condition and in such acute stage. Personal change is the basis of any efforts in transforming our condition, but is it adequate enough in our age of immense and complex troubles?


I agree with Sally B. Queen’s evaluation on engaged Buddhism as highlighted by Rita M. Gross that, “although all Engaged Buddhists strongly advocate internal, personal change as important to furthering a good society, more thinking about the role of institutions and how to change them is also required.”5 In line with this notion, Jeffrey R. Timm also admits that:


Change, empowerment, and liberation are standard themes in the study of Buddhism, but these themes have often been understood in the context of identifying the cause of suffering, promulgating the dharma/practice, and achieving a spiritual enlightenment. Focusing on the social philosophies and movements of Buddhist leaders like Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Sulak Sivaraksa, the Dalai Lama, and Thich Nhat Hanh offers another face: Buddhism as a pluralistic dynamism directed out into a world of social inequality and political injustice.


Based on these two statements, then, I would argue that the Theravadin teachings and practices in Indonesia need to work more intensively and collectively in order to be fully socially engaged. We have not yet established collective works to transform our society which will endure in the long term of struggle. Our ways of understanding the teachings of Buddha need to be transformed in such a way as to enable us to be more responsive and sensitive to the suffering of others caused by social inequality and political injustice.


Another important point drawn from Dietrick’s criticism to engaged Buddhism that can be applied here is his concerns in what he calls as “mistaking the boat for the shore,” that it is not the task of Buddhists to deal with the non-religious salvation of individuals. But if Buddhists’ strivings for peace and social justice were intended to create the conditions that making plausible themselves and others to achieve their liberation from the world of samsaric suffering,7 then they might able to call for the Theravadins’ attention. This, especially, relates also to the common notion that changing the external factors will not benefiting our spiritual maturity.


Thomas Freeman Yarnall describes engaged Buddhism as a movement that is inspired by Buddhist values to lessen the suffering of the world by “engaging (as opposed to renouncing) the various social, political, and economic institutions, structure, and systems in society.” Evaluating the Indonesian Theravadins’ attitudes, it seems that we are not engaging ourselves with the social, political and economic institution, structure, and systems in our society. Instead, we are turning our attention inwardly; we are striving to be peaceful, keeping our minds from outer distractions. It is acceptable, as far as it makes our mind calm and clear to make further steps to respond wisely. Maintaining our minds in pure state is not an end in itself; it is our power to cope with what is happening before us.


Conclusion


As I stated in the beginning of this paper, this is only a preliminary research. My decision to write and submit this unfinished work is encouraged by my concerns to bring up my experience and observation of our situations in Indonesia. I am part of the Theravada community who are willing to contribute the wisdom of the Buddha teachings to aid our society. But we have to be humble to realize and accept our limitations and weaknesses in order to improve our service. Criticizing ourselves and learning from others’ successful endeavor is my main intention through this valuable meeting. May all beings be happy and peaceful!