The 4th Point — Insight Myanmar

On March 5th, the Irrawaddy published an article celebrating Sitagu Sayadaw “[breaking] his silence over the military’s brutal assaults on anti-regime protesters.” The article refers to a letter that Sitagu Sayadaw and fellow Shwegyin monks sent to the military, which appeared to be a clear rebuke to the coup. The Irrawaddy article continued: “By expressing great concern about the crackdown, the nine leading monks of Shwe Kyin Sect, including Sitagu Sayadaw, on Thursday urged coup leader Min Aung Hlaing to immediately stop the deadliest assaults on unarmed people and to avoid robbing or destroying people’s property.”

With Shwegyin being the second biggest Buddhist sect in the country, and Sitagu himself being a signatory as well as the country’s most important monk, the letter was rightly celebrated by all who read the news. As one online reader commented, “The people of Myanmar have urgently waited for such a statement, because the Ven. Sitagu Sayadaw is said to have the maximum influence on the coup leader, but he was slow to condemn the coup.” However, it appears there is more to the story that at first appeared so optimistic…

Back in the day in Myanmar, news was gleaned mainly in passing tea shop conversations, but that has since been replaced by Facebook, which has been buzzing since the release of this letter last week. The full story is still not totally known and may never be, but we will try to recap the online Burmese discussion of what has happened up to this point. Please note that the information that follows has not been independently verified, but is recapping the Burmese-language online discussion taking place.

Here is a rough translation of the published letter (see original below):

Left (Office Stamp):     Shwegyin Nikaya Head Office

                                    New Maha Visuddhayone, Mandalay

Right (Letter head):     All Sasana Shwekyin Nikaya Head Office, New Maha vVsuddhayone building

Maha Aungmyae Township, Mandalay

                                                                                                Date: March 3, 2021, Thursday

To: Chief General Min Aung Hlaing

Chief of staff Tatmadaw Defense Armed Forces

Naypyitaw

Subject: Letter of request with mettā (loving kindness)

1.     There was a tradition and sample case that the first Shwegyin Sayadawphayagyi, who founded Shwegyin sect 160 years ago, personally met with King Mindon and saved the lives of detained monks (Saṅgha) in Mandalay by the vicinity of Irrawaddy river in the way of Dhamma.

2.     Having heard the sad news about the current situation throughout Myanmar, we Sangha members of the Shwegyin sect are dismayed and concerned.

3.     Therefore, according to the duty of the Saṅgha and disciples, the letter of request with mettā was sent out to carry out the following.

a)     To stop violent crushing the unarmed civilians immediately.

b)     To avoid looting and destroying the properties of people.

c)     To demonstrate a good Buddhist by behaving with mettā (lovingkindess)

4.     To perform according to ten moral practice of the king/ruler by Buddhist tradition.

Signature                                                                     Signature

Bhandata Vijota                                                                      Bhandata Nyanisara

Head of Shwekyin Sasana Sayadaw                            Sitagu Sayadaw

Shwekyin nikaya Chief Chairman Mahanayaka                     Shwekyin nikyaya vice Chaiman Mahanayaka

Signature                                                                     Signature

Bhandata Agganyanabhivansa                                               Bhandata Nandamalabhivansa

Shwekyin nikaya vice Chariman Mahanayaka                        Shwekyin nikaya vice Chariman Manayaka

Signaure                                                                      Signature

Bhandata kosala                                                         Bhandata Osadasiribhivansa

Shwekyin sect Chief Executive                                                Shwekyin sect Executive

Signature                                                                     Signature

Bhandata Chandanasara                                            Bhandata Veruviya

Shwekyin sect Executive                                             Shwekyin sect Executive

Signature

Bhandata Vinitalankarabhivansa

Shwekyin sect Executive

-Office copy

As best as some in the Burmese online community have determined, an initial letter was agreed upon by the monks consisting of just three points (see below); it was written with space left for signatures, and seems to have been sent to Sitagu Monastery for final review, after which it was to be signed. But as you can see, the final, published version contains four points: establishing the historical precedent of the original Shwegyin Sayadaw taking a political stand over a century ago, the monks stating their dismay at the current situation, pleading with the military government to stop their on-going reign of terror, and urging the military leaders to act in righteous and moral ways.

It is the critical addition of this fourth and final point about the moral responsibilities of rulers where the controversy sets in. This immediately gives rise to some questions: What does the fourth point really mean? Why was it added in at such a late stage in the process? Why did the monks sign the final version if they did not agree with the fourth point? Who added the fourth point?

The issue is hidden in the symbolism of its language. This was overlooked at first by many Burmese in the wave of optimism the letter’s publication initially generated. And on the surface, the line simply alludes to a well-known verse from an original Jātaka Tale (chapter 21, Asītinipāta - verse 176), where ten virtuous practices of morally upright, just rulers are laid out. Point number four seems to simply implore the military leadership to adhere to that solid and well-known Buddhist wisdom—a very apt reminder given that nonviolent protesters are literally being gunned down in the street.

The issue lies in the statement’s use of the Burmese word “min,” which means “king.” Through this one word, by implication, the current generals immediately become connected in legitimacy to past Bamar kings. This historical linkage is an association that the military has consciously worked to emphasize themselves over the years, and they have actively sought confirmation of it from the monastic community; by securing that imprimatur, they can claim a divine blessing for their rule, and a sorely needed legitimacy.

One Burmese person wrote on social media: “I even overlooked the intended meaning. One can easily overlook the point in the letter. People expect the highly regarded Sangha will request the release of Aung San Suu Kyi et al, and recognize the election result. The essential ingredient is missing in the letter.” The person expressed further frustration that nowhere in the monks’ letter do they actually call on the military to release NLD members and others who have been illegally imprisoned.

A number of protesters, along with supportive members of the Saṅgha and lay meditators, initially celebrated news of the letter, not knowing that the original version did not include the point about the moral actions of kings. But then a draft of the original letter was leaked, and the full story, and implication of that surreptitiously added fourth point, began to sink in.

As this reality began to dawn on some online Burmese forums, their initial optimism and jubilation turned sour. A Facebook user commented that it was at best “a slap on the wrist of the bloody hands of the military,” and that “instead of rejecting the illegal military coup, it implies the acceptance of a king ruling.” In other words, that superficially innocuous final point neutralizes at best, and negates at worst, the other three points.

So while the controversy is clear, the answers to the above questions may never be known. Whoever it was that added this fourth point, we can only wonder about why the monks lent their signatures to the document even after the change was added in. We can share a few possibilities that have been batted around on-line. One is that the monks simply overlooked the double meaning of the added point. Another is they felt pressured to sign the altered document—without their signatures, no statement at all would be issued to the coup leaders. Related to this is if the final point was added by a revered and powerful figure/figures in the monastic community, the signatories would likely not feel comfortable in opposing him/them. Finally, perhaps they felt that keeping unity and avoiding a split within the Saṅgha was still their most important duty, and so whatever their personal feelings, they simply moved to agreement.

So in the end, we are left with some big questions that may never be answered. We are also left wondering whether this letter will have any moderating effect at all on the decisions and actions of military leaders. But we are certainly left with the concern felt by many Burmese that what could have been such a promising and important statement against the coup leaders by the powerful Shwegyin monastic order turns out in the end to have been just another disappointment.

Mar	APR	Jun
	29
2020	2021	2022