Buddhism in non-democratic countries

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

When he was a young prince Buddha did not follow in his father’s footsteps and become ruler. Presumably he could have used that position to reform society however he wished.

He had seen old age, sickness, and death. In his story he specifically embarks to solve those problems. The answer was within himself, not reforming society.

Had he continued on as King and been a good king he would have been forgotten long ago. What he did instead still benefits people—us—today.

**********

That being said, if you see suffering and injustice and are able to alleviate it, by all means go right ahead. Just understand you’re giving a medicine that treats a symptom and not a medicine that treats the underlying disease.

[PeterC]

It is kind of interesting that almost simultaneously in India and in the Roman Empire the democratic republic was gradually lost to kingship or to emperorship.

There are teachings for kings in the Mahayana sutras:

The Humane King Sutra (Chinese: 仁王經; pinyin: rén wáng jīng; Japanese: 仁王経; rōmaji: Ninnō-gyō; Korean: 인왕경; romaja: inwang-gyeong; Vietnamese: Kinh Hộ Quốc) is found in Taisho No. 245 and 246. Many scholars have suspected this sutra to be composed in China but not all scholars agree with this viewpoint. There are two versions: the first is called the Humane King Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (仁王般若波羅蜜經), while the second is called the Humane King State-Protection Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (仁王護國般若波羅蜜經), more idiomatically the Prajnaparamita Scripture for Humane Kings Who Wish to Protect their States. Both sutras are found in the prajnaparamita section of the Taisho Tripitaka.

This sutra is unusual in the fact that its target audience, rather than being either lay practitioners or the community of monks and nuns, is the rulership (i.e. monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, etc.). Thus, for example, where the interlocutors in most scriptures are arhats or bodhisattvas, the discussants in this text are the kings of the sixteen ancient regions of India. The foregrounded teachings, rather than being meditation and wisdom, are "humaneness" and "forbearance" or "ksanti", these being the most applicable religious values for the governance of a Buddhist state. Hence today in some Chinese temples, the sutra is used during prayers on behalf of the government and the country.

There's an above-average chance that that particular text is a Chinese composition (though that alone does not invalidate it as Buddhavacana). The themes are very consistent with mainstream Tang thinking on the authority of rulers - e.g. Li Shimin's famous 民为水君为舟 水可载舟亦可覆舟, and various other contemporary writings that demonstrate the idea that the ruler-ruled relationship is a two-way street.

There is a well-established tradition of advice to rulers on how to fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the Dharma, for instance Nagarjuna's Ratnavali. As an aside, this tradition would make good reading for a lot of people in positions of authority, whether political or otherwise, today.

What I'm not seeing in this, again, is a tradition of advice to *practitioners* about any obligation they might have to oppose an unjust ruler. Actually I would go further and say that given the pervasive theme of withdrawing from the world to practice - settle your affairs, find a cave, etc. - the implied advice is that one should in general not do this.

Although I don't see a right/obligation to replace a bad ruler in Dharma texts, that idea definitely existed in Chinese philosophy long before the Tang. The mandate of heaven is very different from the divine right of kings - it reflects the competence and capability of the ruler. A ruler who can't do the job loses the mandate, and therefore is, in historical terms, fair game, and this provides a mechanism to overthrow a bad ruler and then justify it as necessary. Various signs are usually cited to demonstrate this - famines, natural disasters, etc. - to give additional heavenly legitimacy to the new dynasty. This is, interestingly, an idea that never made it to Japan. The language of the mandate of heaven was excluded from the legal codices that they adapted from China, and legitimacy to rule came from lineal descent.

[Aemilius]

I find it hard to believe that it would not be a sutra that appeared in India. It doesn't know that China and its emperor even exist. After the 16 Great Countries the sutra mentions 500 middling and 100 000 small countries in Jambudvipa. The sutra speaks of Mahakala deva as a heterodox practice, it is definitely an Indian or hindu religion that is referred to. Edward Conze obviously didn't doubt its authenticity, if he had, he would not have translated it. It was translated into chinese twice, and Kumarajiva mentions working from a sanskrit original (according to the wikipedia article footnote). As Conze was working from the translations found in Taisho, all the disasters (mentioned in the Benevolent Kings sutra) are still there in the japanese versions of it. What about Nichiren and his views about the national disasters in relation to the Buddhadharma and the Japanese emperor?

The meaning is that practicing the Noble Eightfold Way necessarily has an effect on the society. Even if you are living in the mountains or in a forest, you are still part of the society in many ways. You are affecting it naturally by your presence, by your mere existence.

The idea and ideology of a Ruler or King is part of Buddhism from the very beginning. In it we have the tradition of a Cakravartin, a virtuous world ruler, which is mentioned and referred to in numerous sutras and commentaries.

[Presto Kensho]

I am thankful to live in the United States, where there are more Buddhists than in any country outside Asia. This is due to America being a nation of immigrants, as well as the freedom of religion written into our founding documents. It's easy to take our freedoms for granted if you've never lived under a truly authoritarian regime.

[PeterC]

I find it hard to believe that it would not be a sutra that appeared in India. It doesn't know that China and its emperor even exist. After the 16 Great Countries the sutra mentions 500 middling and 100 000 small countries in Jambudvipa. The sutra speaks of Mahakala deva as a heterodox practice, it is definitely an Indian or hindu religion that is referred to. Edward Conze obviously didn't doubt its authenticity, if he had, he would not have translated it. It was translated into chinese twice, and Kumarajiva mentions working from a sanskrit original (according to the wikipedia article footnote). As Conze was working from the translations found in Taisho, all the disasters (mentioned in the Benevolent Kings sutra) are still there in the japanese versions of it. What about Nichiren and his views about the national disasters in relation to the Buddhadharma and the Japanese emperor?

The meaning is that practicing the Noble Eightfold Way necessarily has an effect on the society. Even if you are living in the mountains or in a forest, you are still part of the society in many ways. You are affecting it naturally by your presence, by your mere existence.

The idea and ideology of a Ruler or King is part of Buddhism from the very beginning. In it we have the tradition of a Cakravartin, a virtuous world ruler, which is mentioned and referred to in numerous sutras and commentaries.

It's not an either/or question on authenticity of texts. A lot of the Chinese canon didn't come from India as complete texts but was assembled/edited/expanded in China, often in Sanskrit. There were multiple scriptoria in what is now Western China copying and editing sanskrit texts. There are those who think that unless a text had a complete sanskrit original traceable to India, it's not Buddhavacana. I don't hold that view, I think there's a lot of texts that are either composites or composed/attributed in China that are the Dharma.

Now if we're talking about Nichiren, we're already half a millenia later than the Tang, and there's been a lot of water under the bridge in cultural and political thought, not to mention development of East Asian thought about the Dharma. The 大宝律命 was, I think, based closely on the 唐律 which predated it slightly, but there were changes made around references to 天命, because the Japanese imperial family was nominally descended from Kami. But we're getting into a complex area here, because although the Tang went out of its way to be deferential to older Han Chinese traditions, not all dynasties were Han. Indeed the Li family themselves weren't really Han, along with a lot of other dynasties over the years who may have had different ideas on these issues (the Jurchens, Mongols, etc.), yet for these purposes we have to consider them all Chinese. Moreover Nichiren's own position on this was highly controversial at the time and almost got him killed - though I believe a lot of the history of that period comes from Nichiren's own accounts, including the miraculous events that halted his execution. So I'm not sure we can take him as a normative view on political thought in Japan at the time, and definitely not China, a country he never visited.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with your comments above around the way that the Sutras recognize and comment on the existence of a ruler. What I'm not seeing is references to a positive obligation for practitioners to denounce or oppose an unjust ruler. That's been my fundamental point throughout this discussion.

[Aemilius]

I find it hard to believe that it would not be a sutra that appeared in India. It doesn't know that China and its emperor even exist. After the 16 Great Countries the sutra mentions 500 middling and 100 000 small countries in Jambudvipa. The sutra speaks of Mahakala deva as a heterodox practice, it is definitely an Indian or hindu religion that is referred to. Edward Conze obviously didn't doubt its authenticity, if he had, he would not have translated it. It was translated into chinese twice, and Kumarajiva mentions working from a sanskrit original (according to the wikipedia article footnote). As Conze was working from the translations found in Taisho, all the disasters (mentioned in the Benevolent Kings sutra) are still there in the japanese versions of it. What about Nichiren and his views about the national disasters in relation to the Buddhadharma and the Japanese emperor?

The meaning is that practicing the Noble Eightfold Way necessarily has an effect on the society. Even if you are living in the mountains or in a forest, you are still part of the society in many ways. You are affecting it naturally by your presence, by your mere existence.

The idea and ideology of a Ruler or King is part of Buddhism from the very beginning. In it we have the tradition of a Cakravartin, a virtuous world ruler, which is mentioned and referred to in numerous sutras and commentaries.

It's not an either/or question on authenticity of texts. A lot of the Chinese canon didn't come from India as complete texts but was assembled/edited/expanded in China, often in Sanskrit. There were multiple scriptoria in what is now Western China copying and editing sanskrit texts. There are those who think that unless a text had a complete sanskrit original traceable to India, it's not Buddhavacana. I don't hold that view, I think there's a lot of texts that are either composites or composed/attributed in China that are the Dharma.

Thanks for the thoughtfull reply. I agree that there can be genuine sutras that have appeared in China (because of the Trikaya). But I'm still sure that for example the Benevolent Kings Sutra is an in-India originated text. For the reasons already stated, and to give one more ground for my view: You can compare it to the situation that we have today. How would you react if you heard that Ole Nydal or Ken Wilber has discovered a new Tantra and is giving an oral transmission of it? In fact, how do you react to these people, and others like them? There seems to be no limit to the wrath of some people toward both of them. What would happen if they began teaching their new and genuine Sutras and Tantras ?!

[PeterC]

I find it hard to believe that it would not be a sutra that appeared in India. It doesn't know that China and its emperor even exist. After the 16 Great Countries the sutra mentions 500 middling and 100 000 small countries in Jambudvipa. The sutra speaks of Mahakala deva as a heterodox practice, it is definitely an Indian or hindu religion that is referred to. Edward Conze obviously didn't doubt its authenticity, if he had, he would not have translated it. It was translated into chinese twice, and Kumarajiva mentions working from a sanskrit original (according to the wikipedia article footnote). As Conze was working from the translations found in Taisho, all the disasters (mentioned in the Benevolent Kings sutra) are still there in the japanese versions of it. What about Nichiren and his views about the national disasters in relation to the Buddhadharma and the Japanese emperor?

The meaning is that practicing the Noble Eightfold Way necessarily has an effect on the society. Even if you are living in the mountains or in a forest, you are still part of the society in many ways. You are affecting it naturally by your presence, by your mere existence.

The idea and ideology of a Ruler or King is part of Buddhism from the very beginning. In it we have the tradition of a Cakravartin, a virtuous world ruler, which is mentioned and referred to in numerous sutras and commentaries.

It's not an either/or question on authenticity of texts. A lot of the Chinese canon didn't come from India as complete texts but was assembled/edited/expanded in China, often in Sanskrit. There were multiple scriptoria in what is now Western China copying and editing sanskrit texts. There are those who think that unless a text had a complete sanskrit original traceable to India, it's not Buddhavacana. I don't hold that view, I think there's a lot of texts that are either composites or composed/attributed in China that are the Dharma.

Thanks for the thoughtfull reply. I agree that there can be genuine sutras that have appeared in China (because of the Trikaya). But I'm still sure that for example the Benevolent Kings Sutra is an in-India originated text. For the reasons already stated, and to give one more ground for my view: You can compare it to the situation that we have today. How would you react if you heard that Ole Nydal or Ken Wilber has discovered a new Tantra and is giving an oral transmission of it? In fact, how do you react to these people, and others like them? There seems to be no limit to the wrath of some people toward both of them. What would happen if they began teaching their new and genuine Sutras and Tantras ?!

That’s not quite the same. With revealed teachings there is always a problem of authority, the fact that it’s been around for a while doesn’t make it authentic, and that it’s recently revealed doesn’t make it suspicious - indeed people prefer to practice recent terma where the lineage is still relatively uncontaminated. Some of the most widely practiced terma cycles today were viewed with suspicion when they were first revealed.

But one never really escapes the need for judgement. If, let’s suppose, the Sakya Trichen announced that he’d revealed a terma, I think everyone would accept it as genuine. Ole Nyadhal - maybe not so much.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Here is part of what happened to Buddhism in Tibet, thanks to Chinese Communist Party.

[PeterC]

Here is part of what happened to Buddhism in Tibet, thanks to Chinese Communist Party.

Thank you for the off-topic comment. From your repeated comments on this topic, I’m guessing you have no personal experience on this issue

[Aemilius]

It's not an either/or question on authenticity of texts. A lot of the Chinese canon didn't come from India as complete texts but was assembled/edited/expanded in China, often in Sanskrit. There were multiple scriptoria in what is now Western China copying and editing sanskrit texts. There are those who think that unless a text had a complete sanskrit original traceable to India, it's not Buddhavacana. I don't hold that view, I think there's a lot of texts that are either composites or composed/attributed in China that are the Dharma.

Thanks for the thoughtfull reply. I agree that there can be genuine sutras that have appeared in China (because of the Trikaya). But I'm still sure that for example the Benevolent Kings Sutra is an in-India originated text. For the reasons already stated, and to give one more ground for my view: You can compare it to the situation that we have today. How would you react if you heard that Ole Nydal or Ken Wilber has discovered a new Tantra and is giving an oral transmission of it? In fact, how do you react to these people, and others like them? There seems to be no limit to the wrath of some people toward both of them. What would happen if they began teaching their new and genuine Sutras and Tantras ?!

That’s not quite the same. With revealed teachings there is always a problem of authority, the fact that it’s been around for a while doesn’t make it authentic, and that it’s recently revealed doesn’t make it suspicious - indeed people prefer to practice recent terma where the lineage is still relatively uncontaminated. Some of the most widely practiced terma cycles today were viewed with suspicion when they were first revealed.

But one never really escapes the need for judgement. If, let’s suppose, the Sakya Trichen announced that he’d revealed a terma, I think everyone would accept it as genuine. Ole Nydahl - maybe not so much.

People prefer authority above everything else. I don't think that Absolute Reality behaves like people usually would like it to behave. Most people here do not take seriously the appr. 550 interviews of awakening persons in the Buddha At the Gas Pump series. And why is that? They do not have the authority of a powerful organisation behind them. People's attitudes are not a result of a careful and impartial study of these awakening persons. They are rejected based on some authority or an other.
https://batgap.com/past-interviews/alph ... ex-guests/ (this is just an example)

[PeterC]

Most people here do not take seriously the appr. 550 interviews of awakening persons in the Buddha At the Gas Pump series. And why is that? They do not have the authority of a powerful organisation behind them.

I had never heard of that before you mentioned it. I guess my response would be - do I need to care about whether these people have achieved anything? Life is limited, i am busy and have limited spare time, one cannot be expected to research and have an opinion on the quite considerable number of people out there claiming attainments of one kind or another. This is why reliance on an authority is useful. We don’t even have time to research any more than a small number of teachers. So it is rational to go first to ones considered reliable.

[Dan74]

Can members of Buddhist communities and / or Buddhist communities on behalf of all their members support authoritarian, totalitarian, non-democratic regimes while inside countries with such regimes? Indeed, on the one hand, all such regimes are based on lies, violence, corruption and theft, which fundamentally contradicts the principles of Buddhism. But, on the other hand, such regimes may even support or, at least, not repress Buddhists and / or Buddhist communities, using such relationships with Buddhists as imitation of patriotism and religiosity, and thereby distracting public opinion from their dirty deeds. That is, can Buddhists / Buddhist communities turn a blind eye to the dirty deeds of such regimes in exchange for their support, or, at least, their loyalty? Does this contradict the tantric samayas and the bodhisattva vow?

I think this is an important question and I don't sympathise with the animosity it was met with. Perhaps because I was born in the USSR and having spend most of my life in Australia, I appreciate what it's like not to have the freedoms many members here take for granted. Of course, today's Russia is not the USSR of the early 80's and I have only a vague idea of the lack of democracy you speak of.

But it is a powerful and legitimate question: are we not complicit if we do nothing? Niemöller's powerful poem pointed a finger at himself and millions of others who did nothing to oppose a murderous Nazi regime. But does a regime need to be a Nazi monstrosity for it to be wrong to be apathetic in the face of its cruelty, its lies and criminal dysfunction?

In Buddhism and in the Western societies at large, there is a powerful undercurrent of middle-class apathy, sometimes trying to pass for a spiritual focus but is quietism at best, narrow self-interest at worst. We are good at shouting at each other, criticising our governments, less good at actually doing something to effect a change we argue for.

All in my jaded opinion, of course.

[Lazy Lubber]

Can members of Buddhist communities and / or Buddhist communities on behalf of all their members support authoritarian, totalitarian, non-democratic regimes while inside countries with such regimes?

I don't ever recall reading any school of Buddhism preaches democracy. My impression is Buddhism teaches communities to conform with their traditions, conform with the Dharma or otherwise have a Benevolent Monarch (or Dictator).

all such regimes are based on lies, violence, corruption and theft, which fundamentally contradicts the principles of Buddhism.

So the Western countries & empires had/have none of the above? For example, its Africans engaged in 150 years of slavery & child labor & supplying of weapons to dictators in the Congo rather than Western corporations?

in the Western societies at large, there is a powerful undercurrent of middle-class apathy, sometimes trying to pass for a spiritual focus but is quietism at best, narrow self-interest at worst. We are good at shouting at each other, criticising our governments, less good at actually doing something to effect a change we argue for. All in my jaded opinion, of course.

So you are longing for the glory days back in the USSR, like The Beatles? Or like the Rolling Stones, whether it is Nazis, Commies or boring narcissistic superannuation investment property Aussies, you can't get no satisfaction?

[Dan74]

in the Western societies at large, there is a powerful undercurrent of middle-class apathy, sometimes trying to pass for a spiritual focus but is quietism at best, narrow self-interest at worst. We are good at shouting at each other, criticising our governments, less good at actually doing something to effect a change we argue for. All in my jaded opinion, of course.

So you are longing for the glory days back in the USSR, like The Beatles? Or like the Rolling Stones, whether it is Nazis, Commies or boring narcissistic superannuation investment property Aussies, you can't get no satisfaction?

So apart from linking two music vids, did you have an actual point you wanted to make?

[shankara]

The third refuge vow in the threefold version is to avoid association with negative people, enemies of the Dharma, which could include, for example, the military. In the modern world, this could also include corporations. My personal interpretation of this would be to include a kind of duty of resistance, if we are not resisting these people then our passivity is a kind of friendship to them.

[Grigoris]

But it is a powerful and legitimate question: are we not complicit if we do nothing? Niemöller's powerful poem pointed a finger at himself and millions of others who did nothing to oppose a murderous Nazi regime.

It's not that Niemoller did nothing to oppose the regime, actually he was a supporter initially. His 1933 autobiography was favorably reviewed by the regime and was a best-seller. It wasn't until 1936, when the Nazi Party called for the forced conversion of Jew to Lutheranism, that he decided to criticise them.

[Viach]

The third refuge vow in the threefold version is to avoid association with negative people, enemies of the Dharma, which could include, for example, the military. In the modern world, this could also include corporations. My personal interpretation of this would be to include a kind of duty of resistance, if we are not resisting these people then our passivity is a kind of friendship to them.

[Fortyeightvows]

there is a teaching that the society must achieve a certain level of spiritual development before a Samyak Sambuddha can appear in it. This means that basic spiritual truths must be commonly accepted, these include four requisite beliefs: there is karma and its result, there are lower and higher worlds in the wheel of becoming, there is a spiritual path and there are Arhats.

do you have some sources or details for this teaching ?

[Aemilius]

I made some attempts to find them recently, not entirely succesful, although I am sure they exist. There is a book of Herbert Guenther: Buddhist Psychology, which is a translation of a work of abhidharmic materials, it should contain a passage on this theme, in the actual text or in the foot notes. (I don't possess Guenther's Buddhist Psychology right now). There are passages in the pali sutras concerning the appearance of a Buddha and the conditions for it. They are short statements scattered in the Nikayas. From memory I can say that in one short sutta Buddha says that if the human society has not achieved a definite stage of moral development, a Buddha's appearance has no benefit, or worse, his appearance will have negative effects in the society and the world at large.