Well, it is very unusual for a Western Theravada Buddhist monk to endorse war in such a generalised manner or womenâs reproductive rights, which when accused of endorsing abortion, BB had to spring to his own defense asserting he would never support abortion. Yet my impression was Trumpâs election agenda was anti-abortion thus when BB said Trump compromised womenâs reproductive rights immediately the impression BB gave was he supported abortion since abortion seemed to be the key election issue. As I said many times, it is all about âimpressionâ. If you say you support womenâs reproductive rights it is generally an automatic impression this means you support abortion.
Now, you probably know if a Theravada monk recommends abortion he is immediately defeated as a monk so BB gives the impression he is skirting around a very grey area & received plenty of criticism for this.
The same with his war promotion, which gave the impression it used the language of the recent post-9/11 US war agenda.
So why would a Theravada monk give such impressions & incur the rebuke from fellow monks such as Bhikkhu Thanissaro merely to express his own person opinion? The Dhamma-Vinaya of the Buddha is not exactly for monks to express personal opinions, like 14 year old children in a liberal school are encouraged to develop & express their own opinions. BB is a monk who is expected to conform to the Vinaya.
The IMPRESSION is his opinion conforms with the opinions of his US supporter base. This is the impression. The strictness of the Vinaya is often about not giving the wrong âimpressionsâ.
Most Western Buddhists appear to strongly disagree with the behaviour of certain Burmese monks who are actively supporting the persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma yet BB is essentially on the same page as these Burmese nationalists but receives far less criticism because, imo, BBs views conform with the subjective views of his US supporter base rather than an objective view of the Buddha-Dhamma.
It is one thing to speak like the Burmese monks. I have heard the key monk talk at length on one occasion and unlike BB he never ever referred to Buddhism, apart from Buddhism being the (defacto) national religion of Burma. The Burmese monk was basically speaking about nationalism rather than about Buddhism. He was advising Burmese to protect their nation rather than advising them where killing Rohingyans fits into the scheme of Buddhism.
But BB is actually discussing karma, rebirth & Nibbana. Even though the Buddha explicitly said a warrior in battle is bound for the animal kingdom &/or hell, BB conveniently states because most Buddhists are not seeking Nibbana in this life it is OK for them to engage in war because they are seeking Nibbana over many lifetimes. But BB seemed to overlook the fact of an unaccountable amount of lifetimes in the animal kingdom or hell will probably be a very large setback for them. The strong impression, at least for me, is BB does not actually believe in rebirth but teaches about rebirth from some ulterior motive. At least for me, his views are difficult to comprehend.
At least to me, BB seems to represent a new class of Western Buddhists that seem insist you must believe in rebirth/reincarnation to be a Buddhist yet they also seem to have very sloppy morals. They give the impression they are creating a dhamma similar to Evangelical Christianity, where somehow faith is more important than deeds & Buddha has forgiven everyone for their sins.
Regards