In the era of Gautama Buddha, approximately 2500 years ago, the concept of human rights had not yet been ratified as the standard of humanism. Just as today, many rights that we now believe to be essential were continuously violated, even unnoticed, at that time. Gautama Buddha did not create a social revolution movement. Even so, he never accepted violence, nor the supremacy of any being, whether human or divine, so, of course, much less did he accept that anyone should be discriminated against for being different. The documentary film I review here, My Buddha is Punk (2015) exhibits with great success and narrative audacity the despair and social anguish of Burma, a broken society, in which "Buddhist" fundamentalism has supported for years, scandalous violations of human rights. The genocides committed against the Muslim minority of the Rohingya people, brought to the fore a group of young Buddhists with the purpose of making known such atrocities, but, above all, what they believe Buddhism really implies. Interestingly, these young activists insist that punk is their only "Buddha". I think it goes without saying that in Gautama Buddha's time, punk did not exist. However, as I point out here, I doubt very much that the humanistic thinking of the founder of Buddhism, his teachings and the history behind the Burmese punk movement in this documentary have nothing to do with each other.
The photographic staging of the documentary is magnificent, even though I am not a specialist in the subject, I consider myself enough of a film buff to be able to say so. The daily routine of its protagonist allows us to travel along with his ideals through different Buddhist temples and hidden places in Burma. His serene expression during meditative practice contrasts with his exacerbated features throughout the scenes that chronicle the frenzy with which they celebrate their concerts. Their music, as well as their activism, also travels through the most rural areas of that country, with the mission of connecting with new generations and making them not only get closer to their band, but also to their principles. The intense gaze of his protagonist, Kyaw Kyaw, thus appeals to reform Burmese society through the fusion of punk music and his interpretation of Buddhist teachings.
Synopsis of this documentary
The documentary story of this filmography features the Burmese activist, Kyaw Kyaw, vocalist of the Burmese group classified in the rock-punk genre. They are known as The Rebel Riot. Their intention is clear, to rebel against the established system and to highlight through their music, the human rights violations that occur in their country. Their motivation involves their interpretation of Buddhism, which aims to detach themselves from the rigid relationship that this religion maintains with the high political spheres and the most deeply rooted traditions of their culture. The story is told from the point of view of these young people, who question the true meaning of Buddhism, expressing through punk the values they consider truly universal.
The new generations represented in the documentary grew up in the era of the Burmese dictatorship. Perhaps because of this, they seem to find in punk a channel for their personal quest. They identify with this style of music and promote it as the spirit of the liberation movement that they themselves interpret as the authentic Buddhist message. According to public interviews given by the band's acknowledged leader, the Burmese punk movement, as an urban phenomenon, emerged in the 1990s. In 2007, protests led by certain sectors of monks, known as the "Saffron Revolution," led to the punk phenomenon establishing itself as a banner of resistance," says Kyaw Kyaw. The humanist, democratic and Buddhist principles of their society are challenged by this group of reformers. Among the daily idiosyncrasies of the Burmese capital, Rangoon, the contrast between the daring punk outfits and the more conservative clothing of the people who walk the streets stands out. The skepticism towards individual freedoms in their country, arises as part of the rebelliousness that these young people want to transmit, not only from the ethnocentric vision more rooted in their society, but precisely because they consider that this is far from the essence of the Buddhist message. The modern versus the traditional does not clash in this story as part of a generational struggle, but rather, it originates from a search for spiritual peace, from social activism. Together with the members of his band Kyaw Kyaw tries to raise awareness among the people of his homeland about the lack of democratic tools in their society, but above all about the constant violation of human rights resulting from the military dictatorship backed by the staunchest Buddhist orthodoxy.
Why is it necessary to make this story known?
The backing of recalcitrant hate speech from certain monastic-Buddhist sectors in Burma, against much more than just the social reputation of the Rohingyas, supported the ethnic genocide campaign carried out mainly by the country's military forces. According to the director of this documentary, Andreas Hartmann, his purpose in filming this documentary was to make known the convulsive history of Burma, a country that, in 2011, after more than fifty years stained by the blood of a tenacious dictatorship, continues to suffer from the violation of human rights. According to data provided by the non-governmental organization dedicated to the investigation, defense and promotion of human rights, Human Rights Watch, the ethnic minority of the Rohingya in Burma has suffered discrimination and incessant repression for decades. The Rohingya are a minority of Bengali origin, Muslim, who for the most part do not have national recognition (in 1982 the Burmese Civil Law denied their nationality). As stateless people, they have suffered persecution, execution and discrimination for many years. The genocides of their ethnic group at the hands of the Burmese military forces in recent years have attracted international media interest, although the conflict does not seem to have been completely resolved.
According to this organization, it is estimated that approximately one million Rohingyas live together in camps in Bangladesh, where the vast majority of them took refuge after the war crimes committed against their ethnicity in Burma in August 2017. Approximately 600 000 of these people have been belittled for their ethnicity, being confined in different concentration camps throughout this country. This misfortune is not alien to fundamentalist orthodoxy, the political doctrine that claims to be "Buddhism." The crux of the plot of this documentary is precisely a reflection on the true Buddhist message. Its story reflects on whether fundamentalism could in fact be considered authentic "Buddhism".
From a Buddhist philosophical point of view
I do not know any Burmese monks in person. I know that Buddhism has been established for centuries as its religious pillar, and that, as is the case in the vast majority of Southeast Asian countries, its main aspect is ascribed to Theravāda Buddhism. However, because of my specialization and training in the subject, as well as the fact that I know enough people, I am aware that the "habit does not make the monk", also within the Buddhist context. Gautama Buddha's ontological analysis was precisely this, that what really matters is what is in the heart. From the point of view of Buddhist philosophy, how can we interpret the message of this documentary? Well, although I think it is not necessary to make the spoiler, since answering this question does not require an exquisite knowledge of Buddhist teachings; I would like to briefly expose here some arguments for reflection.
If the mental process(saṅkhāra) of harboring hatred or rejection(dosa) (without even stopping to discuss that it might be justified toward a certain type of ethnicity) were useful for reversing(paṭiloma) the causes of suffering(dukkha), Gautama Buddha would have recorded it in his teachings. Contrary to this, he, who promulgated compassion and empathy for all sentient beings, professed precisely the opposite message.
Hate never makes hate cease, in this world.
It is the getting rid of hatred [that succeeds in extinguishing the flame of hatred]: this law is universal. na hi verena verāni sammantīdha kudācanaṃ averena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano (Dhammapada 5).
As we can intuit only from the contextual analysis of these famous verses, social inequality, the spilled blood of innocents, as well as the suffering of other beings (whatever their nature), were not issues that did not concern Gautama Buddha. Although in his time nationalist thought had not yet developed in the same way as in contemporary history, the devastation arising from the war between different kingdoms shares ethnocentric ideas with the Burmese conflict addressed in the documentary. Beyond the Buddhist apologetic discourse, from an academic point of view (I dare say, precisely because of what concerns me), the teachings of Gautama Buddha historically promoted the practice of the four "refuge in Brahma", which are nothing more than different ways of expressing the most human quality: empathy. Universal love, compassion, rejoicing in the achievements of others, are the altruistic practices that he defined as restorative, first and foremost, for the one who puts them into practice, especially when performed under the prism of equanimity(upekkhā). The activism of the punk-Buddhist band refers to the reflection (even if they sometimes express it with too much distortion on the guitar, for my personal taste) of these teachings. The Eightfold Path(ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga) is the basis of the Buddhist ethical message. The Middle Way, the method that Gautama Buddha coined so that everyone could by himself attain his own liberation involved more than mere words, doing the right thing. The right thing may be interpretable according to the situation. Which is not to say that it does not mean doing the right thing. Gautama Buddha never denied the (individual) consciousness of the human being to discern the right thing, quite the contrary. Although Gautama Buddha and his group of followers completely renounced their social status, there is no doubt that throughout his life he encouraged philanthropy and altruism in all its possible aspects. For him, doing the right thing is always what "connects" us with the most absolute truth. Kyaw Kyaw also does not doubt the individual's capacity to attain happiness. Like Gautama Buddha, he tries to promote people's awareness of this capacity through his social activism. Which is nothing more, in my opinion, than his interpretation of compassion, the exercise that Gautama Buddha emphasized serves to detach us from all that binds us to continue suffering. Among the volunteer activities that the Burmese punk band carries out is the Food Not Bombs ("Food Not Bombs ", an international movement that began in the United States in the 1980s), where they distribute food to the neediest people. He and his punk band never stop traveling around the most rural areas of the country in order to help the needy.
Not to cling, not even to Buddhism itself?
The renowned Chinese monk Línjì 義玄, founder of the school of Zen Buddhism that bears his name Yìxuán臨済 (in Japanese read Rinzai), left for posterity his message summarized in the phrase: "If you meet a Buddha, finish him off". This shocking advice, although it may sound paradoxical to us, precisely advocated disassociating oneself from any kind of essentialism (a philosophical position that Buddhism from its beginnings denied). Burmese religious fundamentalism, championed by certain sectors that consider themselves Buddhists, seems not to be a particular trait of its people, despite the claims of the Burmese national-centrist movement. The filmography we review here, or rather, the central problem from which its story arises, stems precisely from there, from the ethnocentric vision of those who fear the disappearance of their traditions. To interpret phenomena statically, as if they were independent "things" (rather than interrelated processes) is far from what Gautama Buddha taught. For him, clinging to an idea(micchābhinivesa) derived from misinterpretation(micchādiṭṭhi), which in turn results in acting(micchākammanta) in a biased way(micchāgahaṇa). Those who so act(micchācārī) direct their mind(micchāpaṇihita) in the wrong direction, which chains one to continue suffering. The eagerness(micchāvāyāma) and thoughts(micchāsaṅkappa) that might show up in whatever is done in this direction, which, we stress, grips us to suffering, is triggering a false life(micchājīva). Some of the oldest passages of the Buddhist canon ascribed to the theravāda school gather as direct teachings of Gautama Buddha the following:
Knowing that this is suffering, when these experiences, when you contemplate that these phenomena are false(mosa), then the moment you contact them, their contact vanishes and you understand their nature(dhamma). A self-respecting monk, [is one] without hunger, eradicates his sensations and becomes liberated(parinibbuto).
etaṃ "dukkhan" ti ñatvāna mosadhammaṃ palokinaṃ phussa phussa vayaṃ passaṃ evaṃ tattha virajjati, vedanānaṃ khayā bhikkhu nicchāto parinibbuto ti (Suttanipāta 739).
Knowing the danger of this, that "the flame of attachment" gives rise to suffering, a monk must act consciously, acting free of attachment, without clinging [to anything].
Etam ādīnavaṃ ñatvā taṇhā dukkhassa sambhavaṃ vītataṇho anādāno sato bhikkhu paribbaje ti. (Suttanipāta 741).
In these passages, among the oldest known in the Buddhist canon, the idea seems clear. Attachment and hunger are two metaphors that go beyond material possessions, let us not forget that, in the Buddhist monastic context, these are meaningless. So what is being referred to here? Basically to discard any kind of idea, or in other words to get rid of ethnocentrism. The denial of an individual entity(anattā), exercising compassion and altruism for all beings, as well as many other Buddhist teachings, are nothing but an appeal to the same. If we want to be even more concise and elaborate the argument, we will say that, in such a way, the cognitive process (based on the craving of our consciousness to be fed with stimuli) can be deconstructed. Let us say that that which we consider as real when we cling to that which we experience, is nothing more than the product of the interdependence between matter and consciousness, that which keeps us within existence(saṃsāra). The deconstruction of the empirical process is the goal of Buddhist practice. If you meditate, but hurt others, you are not Buddhist. If you punk, but help others (you are also helping yourself, hence the idea that altruism is liberating), yes you are truly Buddhist. Being a Buddhist does not imply wearing a specific habit, but behaving in the right way. Rightness does not imply a specific behavior, it depends on the situation. What is not relative is the direction it has to take to be identified as right. The objective is always the same, to counteract the effects of what produces suffering.
From the punk group leader's point of view, certain sectors of the main religious tradition of his country had tolerated, based on essentialism, firstly, that the political systematization of religion should result in its detachment from its original altruistic message, but above all that this should result in something that further contradicts its conciliatory message: hatred and its greatest exponent, violence. The fundamentalism generated by religious orthodoxy is not exclusive to Burma. The strong links with the political sector of the Buddhist community in other Southeast Asian countries have led to nationalist ideas being supported under the pretext of not allowing what these people believe in to be distorted. The conversation that the leader of the Burmese punk group Kyaw Kyaw has in the garage with other followers of his movement testifies to the root of the discord. Kyaw Kyaw points out that to understand and implement the Buddhist message in an integral way, what is really needed is "to change oneself, from the heart". The young man appeals for something more than what has been established in his country as Buddhism. His quest for spiritual freedom is more than remarkable. His channel is punk, for him, his "Buddha".
Final thoughts
I am convinced that Gautama Buddha would not have liked punk music very much. In fact, I'm not even sure that, if he had heard it, he would have considered it "music", as such. Well, this is perhaps an overly subjective opinion of the author. Still, what I have no doubt about is that Gautama Buddha would not have completely disapproved of the implicit intention of the message: "Punk is my Buddha". For all lovers of humanism, the modern history of Burma, but especially to observe how certain people have overcome adversity and fight to defend the Truth, deserves a visit to the newspaper library, as well as a deep personal reflection.
Recommended articles related to the documentary
https://www.nytimes.com/es/2019/07/11/espanol/birmania-budismo-musulmanes.html
https://www.punkethics.com/rebel-riot-interview/
https://www.sandrahoyn.de/portfolio/the-punk-of-burma/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/saffron-revolution-good-monk-myth/541116/
Dhammika Herath (2020) Constructing Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar: Imaginary of a Historically Victimised Community. Asian Studies Review 44:2, pages 315-334.
McCarthy, Stephen (2008). "Losing My Religion? Protest and Political Legitimacy in Burma," Griffith Asia Institute Regional Outlook Paper, No. 18.
Steinberg, D. (2008). Globalization, Dissent, and Orthodoxy: Burma/Myanmar and the Saffron Revolution. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 9(2), 51-58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43133778. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43133778
