Editing Burma (section)

== Radical Buddhism in Burma ==

Radical Buddhism in Burma has taken several forms. During the colonial period, Buddhist millenarianism and nationalism contributed to resistance against British rule, most notably in the Saya San rebellion. From the 1930s onward, Burmese Buddhist nationalism increasingly intersected with socialism and Marxism, contributing after independence to attempts to formulate a specifically Buddhist form of socialism. The most prominent representatives of this tradition were [[U Nu]] and [[U Ba Swe]]. Alongside this more explicitly political tradition, however, a distinct form of radical Buddhist modernism developed among Burmese Buddhist thinkers who subjected established Buddhist doctrines and institutions to critical scrutiny and sought to reinterpret Buddhism in light of modern intellectual currents. In some cases this led to radical social and political conclusions without depending directly on Marxism or another Western political ideology. This tradition, represented by figures including Ashin Ādiccavaṃsa, [[Shin Ukkattha|Shin Ukkaṭṭha]], and [[Ashin Nyana|Ashin Nyāna]], is discussed below under "[[#Burmese Radical Buddhist Modernism|Burmese Radical Buddhist Modernism]]".

=== Milleniarism and Saya San ===

Burmese popular Buddhism harbored, from at least the early nineteenth century, a millenarian expectation of a "Restorer of the Golden Age" (''Setkya-Min'') or "Buddha-king" (''Buddha-Yaza''), an ideal Buddhist ruler and future Buddha whose advent was to end the present "Age of Decline" and inaugurate a perfect society.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 154–155.</ref> This eschatology repeatedly fueled anticolonial insurgency: pretenders to the Setkya-Min identity led revolts against East India Company forces as early as 1839, and further Setkya-Min and Buddha-Yaza risings followed the final British annexation of Upper Burma in 1885–86, recurring sporadically into the 1920s.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 155–159.</ref> The tradition culminated in the peasant rebellion of 1930–1932 led by Saya San, a former monk and lay Buddhist healer who organized secret village societies (''Galon Athin'') that fused economic grievance over Depression-era taxation and indebtedness with a "royalist," millenarian Buddhism; several monks served the movement as organizers and local commanders before it was suppressed by roughly 12,000 British-Indian troops.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 160–163.</ref>

=== Buddhist Nationalism, Marxism, and the Origins of Buddhist Socialism ===

Alongside this rural millenarian current, an urban and organizationally modern political Buddhism developed from the founding of the Young Men's Buddhist Association (YMBA) in 1906, whose members went on to found the General Council of Burmese Associations and which became, despite its ostensibly religious charter, the principal training ground for Burma's future nationalist politicians.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 128–129.</ref> Politically active monks, most prominently U Ottama, who returned from India in 1921 having absorbed Gandhian ''satyagraha'', explicitly linked ultimate liberation (''nibbana'') to national independence and mobilized the rural ''sangha'' against colonial rule, a mobilization made easier by the lapse of the ''thathanabaing'''s central monastic authority.<ref name="matthews" /> In the 1930s, university-educated nationalists who adopted the honorific ''thakin'' ("master") in the ''Dobama Asiayone'' ("We Burmans Association," founded 1930) turned increasingly to Marxism, distributing translated Marxist-Leninist literature through the Nagani ("Red Dragon") Book Club, founded in 1936–37 with the involvement of the future prime minister Thakin Nu, later known as U Nu.<ref>Su (2022), "Buddhist Socialism and National Identity," p. 113.</ref>

Because Burmese possessed no established secular political vocabulary, Marxist ideas were characteristically explained through Buddhist categories. Thakin Soe, the most systematic theoretician of Burmese Leninism, had studied Buddhist philosophy before turning to Marxist "classics," and he glossed the Leninist unity of theory and practice through the Abhidhamma triad of scriptural preservation, possession of knowledge, and scripturally grounded practice, while rendering the dialectical-materialist notion of the eternal flux of matter through the Buddhist cycle of world-arising and world-destruction.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 168–169.</ref> U Ba Swe, another leading left-wing ''thakin'' and labor organizer who went on to become prime minister (1956–1957), used the Buddhist term for liberation from impermanence (''bhava'') to denote revolutionary social liberation, and Burmese strike terminology itself derived from the monastic practice of "overturning the alms bowl" (''thabeit hmauk'') in refusal of alms from unworthy donors.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', p. 169.</ref> Both currents converged on the term ''lokka nibban'' ("earthly nirvana"), first popularized in print by the poet and Thakin ideologist Thakin Kudaw Hmine in his 1938 ''Thakin-Tika'', which reinterpreted the Buddhist folk myth of the primeval Padeytha ("Wishing") Tree, an age of common property destroyed by the arising of greed, as a charter for socialism and a critique of private property strikingly convergent with, yet independently derived from, Marxist theories of primitive communism.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 169–170, 173–174; Sarkisyanz (1961), "U Nu's Buddhist Socialism," pp. 56–58.</ref> The Stalinist guerrilla leader Thakin Than Tun likewise grounded Marxist theories of the origin of class society in the same Buddhist myth of the "Padaythabin."<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', p. 174; Su (2022), "Buddhist Socialism and National Identity," p. 121.</ref> A parallel, Fabian-influenced strand of Buddhist socialism ran through U Ba Choe, founder in 1936 of Burma's Fabian League and editor of the ''Deedok'' journal, a devout Buddhist and folklorist whose traditionalist influence on the young Thakin Nu during their student years has been considered formative for the latter's postwar Buddhist socialism.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1965), ''Buddhist Backgrounds'', pp. 172–173.</ref>

=== U Nu ===
{{Main|U Nu}}

U Nu (1907–1995), Burma's first prime minister, was one of the principal proponents of Buddhist socialism. His political thought sought to reconcile Buddhism with socialism while rejecting the materialism of orthodox Marxism. In his early writings, he connected the Buddhist causes of suffering—greed, hatred, and delusion—with economic injustice, and argued that the elimination of poverty and exploitation was necessary for people to have the material security required for moral and spiritual development.<ref>Sarkisyanz, Manuel (1961). "On the Place of U Nu's Buddhist Socialism in Burma's History of Ideas". ''Studies on Asia'' 2.1: 53–62.</ref>

Nu's conception of an ideal Buddhist society was expressed in the idea of ''lokka nibbān'' ("earthly nirvana"), a society in which material welfare and social justice would allow people to devote themselves to moral and spiritual cultivation. His Buddhist socialism therefore differed from Marxism not merely in its religious language but in its ultimate purpose: economic and political reform were means toward the reduction of suffering and the creation of conditions conducive to Buddhist practice, rather than ends in themselves. During the 1950s, however, Nu increasingly rejected Marxism, particularly its materialist philosophy and advocacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and came to emphasize the incompatibility between Marxist materialism and Buddhism.<ref>Sarkisyanz (1961), pp. 55–61.</ref>

U Nu's Buddhist socialism was consequently an important early example of an explicitly Buddhist attempt to address economic and social suffering, but it should not be identified without qualification with Marxist Buddhism. His position combined socialist economic and welfare ideals with parliamentary democracy, Buddhist ethics, and a conception of ultimate liberation that remained distinct from Marxist political theory.

=== U Ba Swe ===
{{Main|U Ba Swe}}

U Ba Swe (1915–1987), a leading figure in the Burmese socialist movement and prime minister from 1956 to 1957, developed a more explicit synthesis of Buddhism and Marxism than U Nu. His central intellectual claim was that a deep study of Marxism did not undermine Buddhist faith but could reinforce it. Addressing the Trade Union Congress in 1950, he argued that Marxist and Buddhist Abhidhamma, as systems of philosophical psychology, were not merely similar but "a thing of one nature", while maintaining that Buddhism provided a higher form of liberation than Marxism.<ref>U Ba Swe, address to the Trade Union Congress (Burma), 1950, translated and quoted in Sarkisyanz, Manuel (1965). ''Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution''. Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 196–198.</ref>

Ba Swe therefore understood Marxism as providing a means of addressing forms of suffering that were social and economic, while Buddhism addressed suffering in its ultimate sense. In his English-language pamphlet ''The Burmese Revolution'', he wrote that the more he studied Marxism, the more convinced he became of Buddhism, and argued that someone who had deeply understood Buddhism should have no obstacle to becoming a Marxist.<ref>U Ba Swe (1952). ''The Burmese Revolution''. Ministry of Information, quoted in Totten, George O. (1960). "Buddhism and Socialism in Japan and Burma". ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2.3: 293–304, p. 301.</ref> His position thus represents one of the clearest instances in Burma of an attempt to integrate Buddhist thought with Marxist social analysis rather than treating the two as competing ideologies.

Ba Swe's position also illustrates the diversity of Burmese Buddhist socialism. Whereas U Nu increasingly emphasized the incompatibility of Buddhist thought with Marxist materialism, Ba Swe continued to regard the two as compatible, with Marxism functioning as a form of mundane liberation and Buddhism providing the ultimate framework for liberation from suffering. His synthesis was consequently an important precursor to, and point of contrast with, later forms of Burmese radical Buddhism.

=== After the 1962 Coup ===

Following the 1962 coup, General Ne Win's Burma Socialist Programme Party pursued a doctrinaire, largely secular "Burmese Way to Socialism" that displaced Buddhist vocabulary from official politics even as the state, especially after 1980, tightened administrative control over the ''sangha''.<ref>Matthews (1999), "Legacy of Tradition," pp. 34–37.</ref> Radical Buddhist activism nonetheless persisted and re-emerged dramatically in the pro-democracy uprising of 1988, in which an estimated 60 percent of Burma's monks are thought to have taken part in demonstrations against the military government, and in the subsequent formation of exile organizations such as the All Burma Young Monks Association, which claimed a "historic duty" for monks to resist military rule.<ref>Matthews (1999), "Legacy of Tradition," pp. 37–38.</ref> After the junta ignored the landslide 1990 election victory of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, monks in Mandalay staged, in August 1990, a rare collective "overturning of the alms bowl" (''patta ni kauzza na kan''), refusing alms and religious services to military officials for two months in an act of ecclesiastical censure with few precedents in Burmese history.<ref>Matthews (1999), "Legacy of Tradition," p. 38.</ref>

=== Burmese Radical Buddhist Modernism ===

Alongside the more explicitly political attempts to combine Buddhism with socialism and Marxism, a distinct form of radical Buddhist modernism developed in Burma during the colonial and postcolonial periods. Burmese Buddhist modernism more generally involved attempts to reinterpret Buddhism in response to modern science, education, comparative religion, and changing social and political circumstances. Its more radical forms went further, challenging established interpretations of Buddhist doctrine, the authority of the traditional Sangha, and aspects of conventional Buddhist cosmology and practice. International Buddhist networks were particularly important in this development. Shin Ukkaṭṭha, for example, encountered theosophy, global Buddhist revival movements, Indian Buddhist modernism, and anticolonial thought during his seven years in India, while Ashin Ādiccavaṃsa was one of his important intellectual influences.<ref>Janaka, Ashin (2016). ''Die Human, Born Human: The Life and Posthumous Trial of Shin Ukkaṭṭha'', pp. 121–122, 128–129.</ref>

Not all Buddhist modernism was radical in the sense relevant to the RBP. The more significant question is what followed from the critical reconstruction of Buddhism. In its radical forms, Buddhist modernism could challenge established religious and social hierarchies, treat suffering as arising partly from social conditions rather than solely from individual moral failings, and understand Buddhist practice as having a purpose beyond individual soteriological liberation. Such a position could lead to radical social conclusions even without an explicit synthesis of Buddhism with socialism, Marxism, or anarchism. Conversely, some Burmese radical modernists did explicitly engage with socialist and communist ideas, making this tradition overlap with the Buddhist-socialist tradition discussed above.

The distinction is particularly important because radical Buddhist modernism in Burma was not a single political or doctrinal program. Its representatives differed substantially in their conclusions. Ashin Ādiccavaṃsa's principal significance for this history lies in his role as a radical Buddhist reformer and an important link in the international Buddhist networks through which new ideas circulated. Shin Ukkaṭṭha combined radical reinterpretation of Buddhist doctrine with anti-colonial nationalism, concern for the poor, opposition to capitalism, and sympathy for socialism and communism. Ashin Nyāna, by contrast, developed a radically this-worldly reconstruction of Buddhism without an established ideological commitment to socialism, Marxism, or anarchism. Their common significance for radical Buddhism lies therefore less in a shared political program than in the extent to which they rethought the content and social purpose of Buddhism itself.

The most important common feature of the more radical forms of this modernism was a movement away from an understanding of Buddhism centered exclusively on conventional religious authority and otherworldly soteriology. This did not necessarily mean rejecting Buddhist liberation, but it could involve relocating the Buddhist analysis of suffering into the present world and asking what follows for human beings living together in society. In its strongest form, this produced a Buddhism in which political, social, and economic conditions could themselves become objects of Buddhist analysis and transformation. Ashin Nyāna provides the clearest example of this development: he interpreted karma as a process operating within the present life, extended the Four Noble Truths to political, social, and economic affairs, treated material conditions as relevant to human flourishing, and explicitly defended collective resistance to oppression.<ref>Foxeus, Niklas (2024). "The Doctrine of the Sky-Blue One in Myanmar: Disenchanted Buddhism". ''Religion'' 54.2: 112–140, pp. 116–117, 126; Ashin Nyāna, ''Dhamma'' (2003), p. 150; Ashin Nyāna, ''Hpayā'', pp. 82–84.</ref>

==== Ashin Ādiccavaṃsa ====

Ashin Ādiccavaṃsa (1881–1950) was a Burmese Buddhist scholar-monk and reformer whose radicalism centred on the critical reinterpretation of Buddhist doctrine and institutions. An unusually international and intellectually independent figure, he became an Anglophone and spent more than ten years in England from the late 1920s, while also studying Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Bengali, and Japanese. He was openly critical of the relationship between Burmese Buddhism and the colonial establishment: he twice refused the colonial government's offer of the title Aggamahāpaṇḍita because he did not wish to be complicit with the colonial authorities. He reportedly went so far as to state that he was not certain that Buddhism was the highest truth and that he would accept a higher truth if he found one. He also advocated vegetarianism for monks and laypeople and permitted laypeople to wear shoes in his monastery, illustrating his willingness to question established Buddhist conventions.<ref>Tejinda, Ashin (2023). "The Embodiment of Buddhist History: Interpretive Methods and Models of Sāsana Decline in Burmese Debates about Female Higher Ordination". ''Religions'' 14.1: 31; Janaka, Ashin (2016). ''Die Human, Born Human: The Life and Posthumous Trial of Shin Ukkaṭṭha'', pp. 108–112, 133.</ref>

Ādiccavaṃsa's radicalism was primarily religious and institutional rather than explicitly socialist or Marxist. Nevertheless, his rejection of colonial patronage, willingness to subject established Buddhist authority to independent scrutiny, international and comparative intellectual outlook, and advocacy of major institutional reform make him an important precursor of Burmese radical Buddhist modernism. He was also a friend and mentor of Shin Ukkaṭṭha, who later described himself as the third in a succession of "revolutionary" Burmese Buddhist thinkers, following Ledi Sayadaw and Ādiccavaṃsa.<ref>Janaka (2016), pp. 108–109, 121–122.</ref>

==== Shin Ukkaṭṭha ====
{{main|Shin Ukkattha}}

Shin Ukkaṭṭha (1897–1978) was one of the most radical Burmese Buddhist modernists of the twentieth century. He developed highly heterodox interpretations of Buddhist doctrine, rejecting traditional cosmology and eventually the attribution of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka to the Buddha, while advocating secular education and challenging the authority of the established Sangha. His thought was strongly influenced by international Buddhist modernism: during seven years in India he encountered theosophy, Indian Buddhist reformers, anticolonial nationalism, and other intellectual currents. He subsequently established a school in Rangoon that was intended in part to educate and uplift poor students and became associated with nationalist and communist activity.<ref>Ashin, Janaka (2016). ''Die Human, Born Human: The Life and Posthumous Trial of Shin Ukkaṭṭha, a Pioneering Burmese Monk during a Tumultuous Period in a Nation's History'', pp. 108–122, 156–170; Crosby, Kate and Ashin Janaka (2015). "A Radical Buddhist Monk: Shin Ukkaṭṭha and the Politics of Buddhist Reform in Colonial Burma", pp. 1–8.</ref>

Ukkaṭṭha's radicalism was not confined to religious doctrine. He declared himself an enemy of capitalism and associated capitalism with ''attavāda'' (the doctrine or attitude of self) and socialism with ''anattavāda'' (non-self), thereby interpreting economic and political systems through Buddhist categories. He expressed sympathy for communism and maintained relationships with Burmese communists, while his concern with the poor and his advocacy of secular education connected his religious reformism with a broader program of social transformation. His position consequently combined elements of Buddhist modernism, anticolonial nationalism, and the political left in a manner that does not fit neatly into any one of these categories. His anti-capitalism and socialism were closely connected to his radical reinterpretation of Buddhism rather than simply being independent political commitments added to an otherwise conventional Buddhist worldview.<ref>Ashin, Janaka (2016), pp. 156–170, 190–207, 253–277; Crosby and Ashin Janaka (2015), pp. 8–16.</ref>

==== Ashin Nyāna ====
{{main|Ashin Nyana}}

Ashin Nyāna (1938–) developed a radically this-worldly reconstruction of Buddhism that challenged conventional Burmese Theravāda on doctrinal, institutional, and social grounds. He rejected supernatural and otherworldly interpretations of karma and saṃsāra and instead interpreted Buddhist teachings primarily in relation to human life in the present world. He also questioned established forms of Buddhist authority and emphasized the need to distinguish the Buddha's actual teaching from later traditions and interpretations. His approach can therefore be understood as a particularly radical form of Buddhist modernism, although he did not simply adopt the standard modernist opposition between "religion" and "science".<ref>Foxeus, Niklas (2024). "The Doctrine of the Sky-Blue One in Myanmar: Disenchanted Buddhism". ''Religion'' 54.2: 112–140, pp. 116–117, 126–128; Ashin Nyāna, ''Dhamma'' (2003), pp. 1–8.</ref>

The social implications of Nyāna's reinterpretation were particularly important. He treated the Four Noble Truths as applicable to political, social, and economic affairs and understood suffering as something that could be produced or intensified by social conditions, not merely by individual moral failings. He consequently argued that people experiencing oppression should resist it collectively and treated the transformation of unjust social conditions as compatible with the Buddhist path. At the same time, he did not identify his teaching with socialism, Marxism, or anarchism. His importance for radical Buddhism therefore lies precisely in the possibility that radical social conclusions can emerge from a reconstruction grounded in Buddhist categories themselves, rather than from an explicit synthesis of Buddhism with a modern left-wing ideology.<ref>Ashin Nyāna, ''Hpayā'', pp. 82–84, 150; Foxeus (2024), pp. 126–128; see also [[Ashin Nyāna#Relevance to radical Buddhism|Ashin Nyāna, "Relevance to radical Buddhism"]].</ref>