The Dhammakaya Foundation and the United Nations: Peace for the Millennium

Updated 1,2 April to include more photos and a few more details of how Wat Phra Dhammakaya is being attacked.

The strong gusts of wind that battered our placards in the peace vigil felt symbolic of the forceful opposition to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, a temple being attacked on various fronts in Pathum Thani, Thailand. But we maintained our position and during the vigil I was among a number of participants interviewed to share what the temple and tradition mean to us and why we were taking part. For my part, I reflected back to the turn of the millennium when Wat Phra Dhammakaya was host to a specially significant gathering.

Formally represented by the Dhammakaya Foundation, a UN-accredited NGO since 1986, the temple participated in the UN One Day in Peace, adopted by the UN as part of a resolution on the University for Peace (nicely described by the The People For Peace Project), as a prelude to the International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World. Participation involved UN Members States, inter-governmental organisations, and non-governmental organisations around the world. The temple marked the occasion by a 200,000 Peace-Candle Lighting Ceremony for “World Peace through Inner Peace” (which it has consistently promoted to resolve conflicts). It was organised in cooperation with the Millennium People’s Assembly Network, the Millennium Forum, Jubillennium, One Day Foundation and the United Religions Initiative.

I had been invited as a dual representative — of the University of Derby (Religious and Resource Centre) and the International Interfaith Centre, Oxford, though in the rush to prepare everything someone assumed incorrectly that I was an academic, bestowing on me the title of ‘Professor’, whereas I was actually employed in IT, to develop an online gateway called MultiFaithNet. (Even so, colleagues in Derby gave me a wonderful opportunity to engage in some scholarly research, allowing me to give papers, particularly at a conference on wisdom.)

[I've archived a copy of the programme — searchable in English and in Thai.]

As well as broadcasting a video message from Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, a number of supporting messages were kindly provided by notable world figures whose initiatives were particularly significant for peace during the 20th century — Lech Walesa, former President of Poland and a Nobel Peace Laureate (in 1983), Dr Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and a Nobel Peace Laureate (in 1987), and Dr Robert Muller, Chancellor Emeritus, University for Peace of the United Nations, Former UN Assistant Secretary General.

Several guests were selected to read out their messages; H.E. Mr. Jerzy Surdykowski, Ambassador of the Republic of Poland to Thailand, was due to read Dr Muller's messages, but he was unable to attend, so I was given that privilege:

DREAM FOR THE YEAR 2000

I dream
That during the year 2000
Innumerable celebrations and events
Will take place all over the globe
To gauge the long road covered by humanity
To study our mistakes and to find feats
Still to be accomplished
For the full flowering of the human race
In peace, justice and happiness.

I dream
That the Third millennium
Will be declared and made
Humanity’s First Millennium of Peace.

I dream
That the year 2000
Will be declared World Year of Thanksgiving
By the United Nations 
(adopted Nov 97 by the UN)

I dream
That all beliefs and cultures 

Will join their hands, minds and hearts
In an unprecedented, universal 

Bimillennium Celebration of Life.

I dream
That on 1 January 2000
The whole world will stand still 

In prayer, awe and gratitude 

For our beautiful, heavenly Earth
And for the miracle of human life.

Dr. Robert Muller
Chancellor Emeritus,
University for Peace of the United Nations 

Former UN Assistant Secretary General
November 30,1999

One of the guests informed me that he had originally told Dr Muller about the event (they were neighbours), volunteering the caveat that the temple was considered controversial. Dr Muller, who was known to appreciate meditation practice, replied that it was actually a sign of positive progress and gave his blessing.

The central focus has always been meditation — the donations that come in are invariably to support this practice in one way or another, whether to build and maintain meditation facilities, including retreat centres, to fund teachers' travel, or to develop instructional materials about practice. Inside temple grounds, one trains in a way that should always support this and during just a short stay I saw evidence of this: one of the temple staff who assisted me in preparing for the ceremony was called Ann. Ann had worked as an air stewardess, but expressed a preference for making meditation central to her life, to the extent that when she dreamt about her friends meditating she would get up and sit in meditation too.

Reflecting its importance, for the ceremony meditation was scheduled for the last half hour of 1999, until the final minute. It felt exceedingly peaceful all round, even though it was surprisingly humid that night for the middle of winter (of course, Thai winters are not like British winters!).

Only then was it time to light the candles for peace with Mrs. Marcia Brewster and H.E. Mr. Padung Padamasankh, both of whom have far more experience of the United Nations than myself.

Looking back, browsing through a beautiful souvenir photo album, I feel wonderment and gratitude, especially to Luang Phor Dhammajayo and Luang Phor Dattajeevo (Abbot and Vice Abbot respectively) for having the vision and loving kindness to enable such a momentous gathering and to all the staff, particularly Dr. Siriporn Sirikwanchai, who facilitated everything with such helpfulness.

Some edited highlights were prepared and dispatched to Times Square in New York, helping people there to celebrate the Jubillennium, entitled Jubillenium Thailand Dhammakaya at the Maha Dhammakaya Cetiya !



Subsequent events, such as September 11th, 2001, may have dimmed lights around the world, but the intention and conviction for peace remain deep. Wat Phra Dhammakaya, through projects grand and not-so-grand, is offering a beacon of especially inner light for the world.

But this is now under serious threat owing to actions being taken by the Thai military government and its supporters. As I write, it looks like the DSI’s visible siege of the temple will halt for the time being, but I suspect that is because efforts are being concentrated elsewhere, mainly to bring in outsiders to control the temple (and hence its practices and assets). Currently, the tactical operation is targeting senior figures, monastics and lay people: so not only Luang Phor Dhammajayo and Luang Phor Dattajeevo have been charged on various counts, but also experienced monastic and lay disciples — all of which are contested. It’s as though there is a factory to fabricate anything to take over by any means available.

For example, on 25 March it was reported in the Bangkok Post (which has long been antagonistic to Wat Phra Dhammakaya) that there are “21 suspects” wanted in connection with alleged land encroachment. Among them Luang Phor Dattajeevo and Dr Siriporn Sirikwanchai! Another person in their list is Saowanee Siripongboonsit. Khun Saowanee is a very experienced UN worker — she was one of the 123 staff singled out for distinguished service when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the UNHCR in 1981. These are honourable people, not criminals.

Some observers have said that Buddhist affairs in Thailand needs reform. Based on my experience over the years — of this and other Buddhist monasteries and centres — I see the right kind of reform already underway at Wat Phra Dhammakaya. It's something that Thailand should be proud of and I wish to encourage anyone who values peace to come and help preserve it.

Ban Ki-moon's Cyril Foster Lecture in Oxford

[updated 4 February]

This evening I went along to Oxford's Examination Schools to listen to H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General, give a speech entitled 'Human Protection and the 21st Century United Nations' by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. This was for the annual Cyril Foster Lecture organised by the Department of Politics and International Relations. Mr. Ban Ki-moon was the 4th UN Secretary General to give this speech, in front of an audience of about 400 people (mainly students) in South Schools, plus an estimated 500+ in overflow rooms, who watched video transmissions on projector screens. I share here a few points that interested me and my response.

The UN Secretary-General was formally welcomed by Prof. Andrew Hamilton, Vice-Chancellor, who explained how Cyril Foster, a relatively humble owner of sweet shops, came to make a profound difference: having no dependents, he decided to give money to serve the cause of international peace, whence the lecture series was instituted in his name. Mr. Foster stipulated that every year a prominent figure working in this area should be invited to speak.

In delivering his contribution today, Ban Ki Moon conveyed enthusiasm and optimistic purposefulness. He had a ready smile and applauded the role that Oxford has been playing, graciously indicating his appreciation for being part of the Oxford community even for just the one day. With his office following him like a close shadow, events like this that allow him to expound his vision, must come as something of a welcome interlude! Even in the relative shelter of a university lecture, the office had the first say, as though tapping him on the shoulder. Thus as UN Secretary-General, he started by addressing the situation in Egypt, and reiterated the need for political change, echoing the phraseology "peaceful transition" used by President Obama, EU leaders and others, in calling for a process of democratisation that better respects the wishes of its people.

(I'm not trained in politics, but I have noticed this statement, like many other statements I hear, especially from Western leaders, seemed pervaded by an assumption that democracy is the de facto system of workable government. Is it? If Emperor Asoka were ruling a South Asian continent today how would he be viewed...? I don't know, but I suppose it depends on what we mean by freedom. In any case, those who have surveyed history and its ideas (see e.g. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, by Garry Trompf) probably have a more measured assessment about what has really worked. The title alone suggests that no particular system - at least not in the past few millennia - has been able to last. )

Mr Ban then proceed to embark on the speech itself, starting in touching fashion by sharing his own experiences in childhood, when his family suffered as a result of the Korean War. He described his sense of displacement during his studies, having to seek shelter outdoors, under trees when rains came. It was the United Nations who came to his rescue and his sense of gratitude is evidently deep. Yet, strangely, on this question of well-being I see these kinds of descriptions of homelessness are close to those for sramanas, those wanderers who have renounced the world in pursuit of the greatest happiness of all, the eradication of the real root of suffering...

The main substance of the speech was in three parts and conveyed a good sense of the scale and nature of the UN's operations, particularly the logistics. The first part was concerned with "fire fighting" - bringing humanitarian resources, expertise etc into desperate situations - and it's here that great progress has been made on the logistical front through the Central Emergency Response Fund. However, more important is prevention, which was the second main strand and here there was ample linkage between environmental devastation and human conflict. Putting resources into prevention is obviously going to be more efficient.

The third part seemed the one that was dearest to Mr. Ban, the operationalisation of human protection. Sovereignty should be respected, but carries a responsibility, a moral imperative, to protect its citizens and their human rights. In this connection we were informed about Responsibility To Protect, an emerging project that I think he greatly cherishes. These appear to be expressions of basic precepts - not to take life, not to take what is not yours etc.

Apart from his opening remarks about his upbringing it was only here that my mind was brought fo focus more on the individual personal situation. Whilst the general picture was admirable for having a compassionate and humanitarian outlook, I felt deeper meanings of human protection were left largely untouched. This is where I'm sure a Buddhist perspective can help: its focus is on intentional actions, where protection is fundamentally protection from various forms of suffering that arise from actions that are cloudy, i.e. born of greed, hatred and delusion. There are two watchwords (in Pali): hiri (moral shame), which is an internal sense of shame at the consequences of a misdeed; and ottapa, its external counterpart, the fear of consequences. These are true guardians of the world.

Whilst claiming not to be used to speak for more than 10 or 20 minutes at a time, Mr. Ban's hour-long speech flowed well and there were many who wanted to ask questions at the end. I think just three people had the chance; I was pleased that one was from the UN Association of the UK, who sought further guidance on how to support the 'operationalisation' of human protection. In his response, the UN Secretary-General acknowledged the key role that members play as instruments of change within societies. Continued focused involved seemed to be the message.

As for the other would-be questioners, the audience was promised use of the department's blog, Politics in Spires.

The session concluded with warm applause and friendly hand waves in return!

Transcript

The UN Web site now has a full transcript of the UN Secretary-General's speech.

Working for inter-religious cooperation: observations from a coalition meeting,

[update appended 4 Jan 2010]

On Tuesday 1st December I joined the second meeting of a coalition working on an initiative UN Decade of Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace held at the Holy Cross Retreat Centre in Templestowe, Melbourne.

I was there as a representative of the International Interfaith Centre. The IIC is not yet a member of the network, so I was invited along just as an observer.

The rationale for the decade (in simplistic terms) is the growing acceptance that religion has a significant impact on the major global issues today, particularly relating to the eradication of poverty and the environment. Whilst Europe may assert a secular view of life, the majority of the rest of the world gives a far higher priority to religion. The upshot of this is that the United Nations has hitherto tended to incorporate aspects of religion only under socio-economic umbrellas, regarding it, for instances, as a subset of culture, and as a result it seems that religious organisations generally have been kept at the periphery of its activities.

Yet many of these organisations are already very active in contributing to UN goals, so it seems sensible to support and add value what is already being done with the official approval of the UN, which can provide structures to help link the various organisations under its wide umbrella and guide the foci.

This is, as I understand it, the motivation for the coalition, and the meeting at the beginning of the month was to work through its goal, objectives, etc. so as to provide a convincing case of the need for such a decade. About 35-40 participants discussed the framework at length over a couple of days, with some absorbing sessions held in a delightful meeting room with large windows overlooking the grounds of the centre (the environment was very conducive).

The process seems well considered; the steering groups comprises some very experienced members, several of whom have worked for many years at the UN (and shared some glimpses into its internal workings, particular the characteristics of various committees). The steering group is very conscious of the need for broad representation and I felt it serves the interests of its member coalition very well - certainly everyone at the meeting expressed much appreciation for the work being put in, which (like most interfaith-related initiatives) has involved considerable personal commitment, much of it offered on a voluntary basis, with resources largely offered as gifts in kind.

Even as an observer, such gatherings prompt anyone who attends to reflect on what their organisation has to contribute. The more I thought about it, the more I felt the IIC was eminently suited to this kind of initiative. It has a history of cooperation, operating from the local, where for instance it has produced a Directory of Oxford Faith groups (I recall giving my personal copy to a very enthusiastic member of Oxford City Council), through interfaith education, including online studies (formerly with lectures) in coordination with Oxford University academics, through to the co-ordination of the International Interfaith Organisations network

Plenty of opportunity for input across a broad set of issues, though there were evidently some differences of opinion which I think will need addressing further, though they mainly concern what I'd regard as the finer detail. A particular issue is how to treat 'faith' vis-a-vis 'religion,' which is an old cookie! There is a term frequently used in the literature of 'Faith-based organisations,' but its definition is apparently of some concern and some would insist that the definitions come from the religious communities themselves, not sociologists. How important is to to resolve the linguistic semantics? Some would wish to be meticulous about the terms in the title, whilst others are less so and are content to assume that the descriptions will make clear the full scope and import. At some stage the steering committee will probably need to settle on some policy to be applied consistently.

I'd also like to see more visible input from academic institutions. Academic voices can be quite vocal and influential in high level political deliberations, so this experience should be tapped into.

At the end of the day, it is the member states who wlll have to make the decision on whether or not to proceed. The general strategy was expressed of putting it to these states how such a decade would help them to achieve their goals; as such religious communities return to a core responsibility of being of service. And seeing the very positive engagement among the various representatives at this meeting, was to me a good sign that such service would indeed be rendered.

Interfaith cooperation is already making important contributions; a UN Decade would amplify such contributions and so I hope it happens.

Update: UN Resolution

With some help from Stein Villumstad, I've since managed to navigate my way through the documentation of UN Resolutions for the 64th Session. The decade is mentioned in Press release GA/10900 concerning Resolution no. A/RES/64/81 discussing Draft A/64/L.15/Rev.1 + Add.1 (7 December 2009), where it says:

"Also adopted today were resolutions on the 2001-2010: ... the International Decade on a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World, 2001-2010; and a related text on the promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace. ... By a draft text on the Promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace (A/64/L.15/Rev.1), ... the Secretary-General would ... at its sixty-sixth session, to solicit States views on the possibility of proclaiming a United Nations decade for interreligious and intercultural dialogue and cooperation for peace."

No doubt updates will be made available on the initiative's Web site (archive available).