Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Discuss the application of the Dharma to situations of social, political, environmental and economic suffering and injustice.
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by PeterC »

Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:28 pm
PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:16 pm
Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:48 pm
Why?
Russia, the devoutly Buddhist country where Dharma practitioners plays an important role in government.
Russia is non-democratic country where corruption thrives, political repression, political killings and torture in prisons.Those who participate in such a government and call themselves Buddhists only dishonor Buddhism.
Ok, have yourself a nice day. Simon’s assessment was correct
Viach
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:30 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Viach »

PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:34 pm
Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:28 pm
PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:16 pm
Russia, the devoutly Buddhist country where Dharma practitioners plays an important role in government.
Russia is non-democratic country where corruption thrives, political repression, political killings and torture in prisons.Those who participate in such a government and call themselves Buddhists only dishonor Buddhism.
Ok, have yourself a nice day. Simon’s assessment was correct
:rolling:
SteRo
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:29 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by SteRo »

Viach wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:20 am 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?
You are actually asking whether non-engaged buddhism is legitimate. It is. But engaged buddhism is legitimate as well.
Viach
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:30 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Viach »

SteRo wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:49 pm
Viach wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:20 am 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?
You are actually asking whether non-engaged buddhism is legitimate. It is. But engaged buddhism is legitimate as well.
No. I ask: is a legitimate and at the same time sincerely engaged Buddhism possible in non-democratic countries? Based on Buddhist principles (truthfulness, etc.), engaged buddhism cannot be legitimate in the eyes of the authorities in non-democratic countries. In such countries, engaged buddhism can only be opposition and therefore
can be subjected to repression. If engaged buddhism is not subjected to repression in such countries, it means that these Buddhists are hypocrites who betrayed Buddhist principles. Therefore, in such non-democratic countries, sincere Buddhism can exist either as non-engaged Buddhism or as engaged buddhism subjected to repression(as opposition) by the authorities. There is no third. More precisely, the third option is a hypocritical "engaged buddhism".
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by PeterC »

Viach wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:15 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:49 pm
Viach wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:20 am 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?
You are actually asking whether non-engaged buddhism is legitimate. It is. But engaged buddhism is legitimate as well.
No. I ask: is a legitimate and at the same time sincerely engaged Buddhism possible in non-democratic countries? Based on Buddhist principles (truthfulness, etc.), engaged buddhism cannot be legitimate in the eyes of the authorities in non-democratic countries. In such countries, engaged buddhism can only be opposition and therefore
can be subjected to repression. If engaged buddhism is not subjected to repression in such countries, it means that these Buddhists are hypocrites who betrayed Buddhist principles. Therefore, in such non-democratic countries, sincere Buddhism can exist either as non-engaged Buddhism or as engaged buddhism subjected to repression(as opposition) by the authorities. There is no third. More precisely, the third option is a hypocritical "engaged buddhism".
Straw men.

Let's suppose you live in the evil, autocratic, repressive and insufficiently democratic kingdom of Ruritania. Any discussion of the kingdom's evil government is banned. However there are many poor people. You decide, with the motivation of helping others developed in your Buddhist practice, to set up a school, a homeless center and a free clinic to address these issues: but you also observe the laws and do not discuss the evil undemocratic government. The government, since you haven't broken any laws, doesn't have any issue with your charitable efforts. How is this unengaged or hypocritical?
SteRo
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:29 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by SteRo »

Viach wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:15 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:49 pm
Viach wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:20 am 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?
You are actually asking whether non-engaged buddhism is legitimate. It is. But engaged buddhism is legitimate as well.
No. I ask: is a legitimate and at the same time sincerely engaged Buddhism possible in non-democratic countries? Based on Buddhist principles (truthfulness, etc.), engaged buddhism cannot be legitimate in the eyes of the authorities in non-democratic countries. In such countries, engaged buddhism can only be opposition and therefore
can be subjected to repression. If engaged buddhism is not subjected to repression in such countries, it means that these Buddhists are hypocrites who betrayed Buddhist principles. Therefore, in such non-democratic countries, sincere Buddhism can exist either as non-engaged Buddhism or as engaged buddhism subjected to repression(as opposition) by the authorities. There is no third. More precisely, the third option is a hypocritical "engaged buddhism".
No, you are insisting that engaged buddhism would have to engage in a particular field but that is not the case.
Viach
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:30 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Viach »

PeterC wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:38 am
Viach wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:15 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:49 pm
You are actually asking whether non-engaged buddhism is legitimate. It is. But engaged buddhism is legitimate as well.
No. I ask: is a legitimate and at the same time sincerely engaged Buddhism possible in non-democratic countries? Based on Buddhist principles (truthfulness, etc.), engaged buddhism cannot be legitimate in the eyes of the authorities in non-democratic countries. In such countries, engaged buddhism can only be opposition and therefore
can be subjected to repression. If engaged buddhism is not subjected to repression in such countries, it means that these Buddhists are hypocrites who betrayed Buddhist principles. Therefore, in such non-democratic countries, sincere Buddhism can exist either as non-engaged Buddhism or as engaged buddhism subjected to repression(as opposition) by the authorities. There is no third. More precisely, the third option is a hypocritical "engaged buddhism".
Straw men.

Let's suppose you live in the evil, autocratic, repressive and insufficiently democratic kingdom of Ruritania. Any discussion of the kingdom's evil government is banned. However there are many poor people. You decide, with the motivation of helping others developed in your Buddhist practice, to set up a school, a homeless center and a free clinic to address these issues: but you also observe the laws and do not discuss the evil undemocratic government. The government, since you haven't broken any laws, doesn't have any issue with your charitable efforts. How is this unengaged or hypocritical?
Judging by the "vegetarian" example you proposed, you live in a democratic country and have a poor idea of the "cannibalistic" lawlessness that is happening in undemocratic countries. I live in Russia. And therefore, your theoretical example is not adequate for me, but even if you stay within the framework of your example, then firstly: undemocracy itself is the main cause of poverty. This means that you cannot help effectively. Continuing to help, without removing the root cause - is this not hypocrisy? Secondly. In your example, the very utterance of truth (the requirement of Buddhism) about the regime is considered by the authorities as extremism. Here the dilemma arises: should an engaged Buddhist observe the unjust law or follow the Buddha’s covenant and tell the truth about the cause of poverty? In my opinion, a sincere engaged Buddhist should choose the truth. Truth (the requirement of Buddhism) → democracy → the disappearance of poverty. There is no other way to help effectively. You can never be a sincere and at the same time effective engaged Buddhist simply by creating an artificial Buddhist cocoon inside an undemocratic country.
Viach
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:30 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Viach »

SteRo wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:38 am
Viach wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:15 am
SteRo wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:49 pm
You are actually asking whether non-engaged buddhism is legitimate. It is. But engaged buddhism is legitimate as well.
No. I ask: is a legitimate and at the same time sincerely engaged Buddhism possible in non-democratic countries? Based on Buddhist principles (truthfulness, etc.), engaged buddhism cannot be legitimate in the eyes of the authorities in non-democratic countries. In such countries, engaged buddhism can only be opposition and therefore
can be subjected to repression. If engaged buddhism is not subjected to repression in such countries, it means that these Buddhists are hypocrites who betrayed Buddhist principles. Therefore, in such non-democratic countries, sincere Buddhism can exist either as non-engaged Buddhism or as engaged buddhism subjected to repression(as opposition) by the authorities. There is no third. More precisely, the third option is a hypocritical "engaged buddhism".
No, you are insisting that engaged buddhism would have to engage in a particular field but that is not the case.
A sincere engaged Buddhist cannot isolate himself from key areas of social life.
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by PeterC »

OK, I'll have one more go at this.
Viach wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:49 am
Straw men.

Let's suppose you live in the evil, autocratic, repressive and insufficiently democratic kingdom of Ruritania. Any discussion of the kingdom's evil government is banned. However there are many poor people. You decide, with the motivation of helping others developed in your Buddhist practice, to set up a school, a homeless center and a free clinic to address these issues: but you also observe the laws and do not discuss the evil undemocratic government. The government, since you haven't broken any laws, doesn't have any issue with your charitable efforts. How is this unengaged or hypocritical?
Judging by the "vegetarian" example you proposed, you live in a democratic country and have a poor idea of the "cannibalistic" lawlessness that is happening in undemocratic countries. I live in Russia.
You don't know where I live, and in any case where you and I live is irrelevant.
And therefore, your theoretical example is not adequate for me, but even if you stay within the framework of your example, then firstly: undemocracy itself is the main cause of poverty.
No. Plenty of rich undemocratic countries. Plenty of democratic countries with a lot of poor people.
This means that you cannot help effectively.
This is a dangerous and incorrect belief. By this logic you can walk past a starving beggar in the street and give him nothing because it won't be "effective" in solving the underlying problem. The fact that you're not solving the bigger problem doesn't mean it's pointless to help with the smaller problem.
Continuing to help, without removing the root cause - is this not hypocrisy?
No. That is not the meaning of hypocrisy.
Secondly. In your example, the very utterance of truth (the requirement of Buddhism)
The requirement of right speech is to refrain from various types of speech, including false speech. There is no positive requirement to go out and engage in true speech (vs. remaining silent) when to do so would cause suffering.
about the regime is considered by the authorities as extremism. Here the dilemma arises: should an engaged Buddhist observe the unjust law or follow the Buddha’s covenant and tell the truth about the cause of poverty?
It's not a covenant. Again, that word has a specific meaning. It's a set of rules for training that one vows to uphold.

And again, there is no positive requirement for right speech. One can choose to remain silent. If it would cause more suffering to speak out, one should remain silent.
In my opinion, a sincere engaged Buddhist should choose the truth.
It sounds like you are a social activist first, and a Buddhist second. Your argument is incorrect from a purely Buddhist perspective.

And you know what - that's fine. You can engage in social activism because you consider it to be right. That's ok. Just don't go saying that Buddhism requires it, because it doesn't.
Truth (the requirement of Buddhism) → democracy → the disappearance of poverty.
It's not a requirement in the sense that you explain it. And it doesn't have to lead to democracy - there's nothing special or magical about democracy. And democracy certainly does not guarantee the disappearance of poverty.
There is no other way to help effectively.
Au contraire, there are many other ways to help. I described one in my hypothetical. But simply practicing the Dharma will help, directly or indirectly.
You can never be a sincere and at the same time effective engaged Buddhist simply by creating an artificial Buddhist cocoon inside an undemocratic country.
If you believe that, then you have completely misunderstood what it means to be a sincere Buddhist.
humble.student
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:35 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by humble.student »

Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:28 pm
PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:16 pm
Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:48 pm
Why?
Russia, the devoutly Buddhist country where Dharma practitioners plays an important role in government.
Russia is non-democratic country where corruption thrives, political repression, political killings and torture in prisons.Those who participate in such a government and call themselves Buddhists only dishonor Buddhism.
Presumably you have a list of names? You might be well suited to taking part in Russian government yourself.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Aemilius »

PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:28 am
Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:22 am
PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:29 am

I don't know, what did the Buddha do when he lived in a non-democratic society?
Of course, since then nothing has changed, right? :jumping:
OK, I'll spell it out

The Buddha lived in a profoundly undemocratic and, by today's standards, unjust society. He spent almost zero time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation

The Dharma has, over the centuries, flourished in profoundly democratic and, by today's standards, unjust societies, and most great practitioners and teachers of the Dharma have generally spent very little time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation

So if we, today, find ourselves living in profoundly undemocratic and unjust societies, the Dharma in no way requires us to do anything about them, because those issues do not lead to liberation.

Of course we might decide that we want to do something about the societies we live in. Perhaps. But there's no Buddhist commandment requiring us to do so.
What you say is a onesided view; Buddha, Dharma and Sangha existed in a society that supported its existence. The indian societies had developed values and cultural systems that allowed sramanas, including Buddha's followers, to live and exist. The indian societies did not demand that every one must be "catholic" or the like by the enforcement of law. For example, their societies, with their kings or rulers, had built halls for the religious and philosophical discussion between different views and different schools of thought.
The Sramanas generally did not accept an omnipotent "god", and the power of a king or ruler was received from the people and not form a "god". Sravasti Dhammika says that according to Jatakas people could remove the king if he was behaving badly. The view of the king's role as being chosen by the people is expressed in the Aggañña sutta.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by PeterC »

Aemilius wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:00 am
PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:28 am
Viach wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:22 am
Of course, since then nothing has changed, right? :jumping:
OK, I'll spell it out

The Buddha lived in a profoundly undemocratic and, by today's standards, unjust society. He spent almost zero time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation

The Dharma has, over the centuries, flourished in profoundly democratic and, by today's standards, unjust societies, and most great practitioners and teachers of the Dharma have generally spent very little time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation

So if we, today, find ourselves living in profoundly undemocratic and unjust societies, the Dharma in no way requires us to do anything about them, because those issues do not lead to liberation.

Of course we might decide that we want to do something about the societies we live in. Perhaps. But there's no Buddhist commandment requiring us to do so.
What you say is a onesided view; Buddha, Dharma and Sangha existed in a society that supported its existence. The indian societies had developed values and cultural systems that allowed sramanas, including Buddha's followers, to live and exist. The indian societies did not demand that every one must be "catholic" or the like by the enforcement of law. For example, their societies, with their kings or rulers, had built halls for the religious and philosophical discussion between different views and different schools of thought.
The Sramanas generally did not accept an omnipotent "god", and the power of a king or ruler was received from the people and not form a "god". Sravasti Dhammika says that according to Jatakas people could remove the king if he was behaving badly. The view of the king's role as being chosen by the people is expressed in the Aggañña sutta.
But does that in any way contradict my argument?

Our friend was arguing that a Buddhist had an obligation to denounce and oppose non-democratic governments. He wasn’t saying that we had an obligation to denounce and oppose governments that oppose the Buddhadharma

I imagine there were kings overthrown by popular will in India of that period, but I’m also sure it wasn’t a peaceful and democratic process when it happened
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Aemilius »

There is some contradiction, India was not "a profoundly undemocratic country...", see for example https://bharathgyanblog.wordpress.com/2 ... ent-india/

Voting was one way of making decisions in the early Sangha. I haven't studied this myself, but I have read that different principles of decision making are laid down in the Vinaya, including different ways of rule by voting. There is a well known vote in buddhist history that took place in the Sangha during the time of King Ashoka concerning the theses of Mahadeva. This vote was won with an overwhelming majority by the Mahasamghika against the Sthaviravada. I can't remember the exact numbers, but if you are interested they can be found in Etienne Lamotte's History of Indian Buddhism.


from V.S. Rama Devi and S.K. Mendiratta's book How India Votes: Election Laws, Practice and Procedure (LexisNexis, 2007):

"[R]epublican forms of government existed in many parts of ancient India. There are numerous references to such Governments in the Buddhist literature. Even in the 4th Century BC, there was a republican federation known as the Kshudrak-Malla Sangha, which offered strong resistance to Alexander the Great. The Greeks have left descriptions of many other republican states in India, some of which were described by them as pure democracies while others were said to be ‘aristocratic republics’.

Although complete details of the working of the republican forms of government in ancient India are not available, it is known that in some of these republics, every adult male member had the right to vote and to be present in the general assembly, which decided all public affairs. With the increase of population and the growing complexities of the social structure, it became increasingly difficult for all citizens to assemble at one place for the purpose of deliberation on state affairs, and gradually this resulted in the evolution of some kind of representative government. We find numerous references to election, referendum, voting, ballot papers, etc., in the history of the Hindu polity.

The nature of franchise for election to the popular assemblies is not fully known. While in the aristocratic republics, the basis appears to have been a family, in other states, all adult male persons, who were not otherwise disqualified, appear to have had the right to vote. By naturalisation, even foreigners could become citizens, and acquire the right of vote.

A vote was known as ‘chhanda’, which literally means a ‘wish’. This expressive term was used to convey the idea that by voting a member was expressing his free will and choice. We also find description of the methods of collection of votes of citizens who could not be present at the meeting of the assembly. For purposes of voting in the assembly, there used to be multi-coloured voting tickets, called ‘shalakas’ (pins). These were distributed to members when a division was called and were collected by a special officer of the assembly, known as ‘shalaka grahak’ (collector of pins). This officer was appointed by the assembly as a whole. It was his duty to take the vote, which could be either secret or open."
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Aemilius »

PeterC wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:47 am
He spent almost zero time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation.

... But there's no Buddhist commandment requiring us to do so.
This is not exactly true, 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.

Shila or morality takes place in a society. Following or not following the five precepts, eight precepts, ten precepts or an other set of precepts takes place in the society. It affects the society, it affects the whole world.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by PeterC »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:42 am
PeterC wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:47 am
He spent almost zero time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation.

... But there's no Buddhist commandment requiring us to do so.
This is not exactly true, 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.

Shila or morality takes place in a society. Following or not following the five precepts, eight precepts, ten precepts or an other set of precepts takes place in the society. It affects the society, it affects the whole world.
None of this requires democracy, though. It's a huge leap to say that basic morality requires democracy or vice versa.

Also I don't think what you say contradicts my point that there is no positive requirement for you to denounce and oppose undemocratic / autocratic institutions. Please correct me if I've misunderstood what you're saying here.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Aemilius »

PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:49 am
Aemilius wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:42 am
PeterC wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:47 am
He spent almost zero time worrying about these issues, because they do not lead to liberation.

... But there's no Buddhist commandment requiring us to do so.
This is not exactly true, 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.

Shila or morality takes place in a society. Following or not following the five precepts, eight precepts, ten precepts or an other set of precepts takes place in the society. It affects the society, it affects the whole world.
None of this requires democracy, though. It's a huge leap to say that basic morality requires democracy or vice versa.

Also I don't think what you say contradicts my point that there is no positive requirement for you to denounce and oppose undemocratic / autocratic institutions. Please correct me if I've misunderstood what you're saying here.
It doesn't require democracy necessarily, but it does require the acceptance of universal human rights, or equivalent. In any society all kinds of issues come up and emerge that were unforeseen, and then the autocratic leadership will usually tell you "what the truth is", and that "everything else is lies". And "liars" are naturally put to prison or mental institutions or they are hanged or burned at the stake, if they don't shut up.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by PeterC »

Aemilius wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:39 am
PeterC wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:49 am
Aemilius wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:42 am

This is not exactly true, 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.

Shila or morality takes place in a society. Following or not following the five precepts, eight precepts, ten precepts or an other set of precepts takes place in the society. It affects the society, it affects the whole world.
None of this requires democracy, though. It's a huge leap to say that basic morality requires democracy or vice versa.

Also I don't think what you say contradicts my point that there is no positive requirement for you to denounce and oppose undemocratic / autocratic institutions. Please correct me if I've misunderstood what you're saying here.
It doesn't require democracy necessarily, but it does require the acceptance of universal human rights, or equivalent. In any society all kinds of issues come up and emerge that were unforeseen, and then the autocratic leadership will usually tell you "what the truth is", and that "everything else is lies". And "liars" are naturally put to prison or mental institutions or they are hanged or burned at the stake, if they don't shut up.
Does it require acceptance of universal human rights, though? The modern conception of that includes equal rights for women, and the Buddha clearly didn’t want to rock the boat on that. I’m not aware of any reference in the Sutras to slaves, but they existed at the time too. And the Vinaya isn’t too accepting of the non-gender-conforming either

I’m not arguing for the sake of playing devils advocate here - I just don’t read that mandate anywhere in the canonical literature
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Aemilius »

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.

A second translation from a Sanskrit text was carried out a few centuries after the appearance of the original version, by the monk Amoghavajra (Bukong 不空), one of the most important figures in the Chinese Esoteric tradition, as well as a patriarch in the Shingon school of Japan. This second version of the text (仁王護國般若波羅蜜經, T 246.8.834-845) is similar to the original version (仁王般若波羅蜜經, T 245.8.825-834), the translation of which was attributed to Kumārajīva, but it contains new sections that include teachings on mandala, mantra, and dhāraṇī.

English translation by Conze, Edward (1974). The Short Prajnaparamita Texts. [esp. The Sutra on Perfect Wisdom Which Explains How Benevolent Kings May Protect Their Countries.
This sutra enumerates the sixteen Janapadas or Great Countries of ancient India, and it is addressed to their kings or rulers.


Dasavidha-rājadhamma ("Tenfold Virtue of the Ruler") is a Buddhist dhamma for rulers of peoples. It is found in the Khuddakanikāya:
Dasavidha-rājadhamma comprises:

1. Dāna (charity) — being prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the public, such as giving away one's belongings or other things to support or assist others, including giving knowledge and serving public interests.
2. Sīla (morality) — practicing physical and mental morals, and being a good example of others.
3. Pariccāga (altruism), being generous and avoiding selfishness, practicing altruism.
4. Ājjava (honesty) — being honest and sincere towards others, performing one's duties with loyalty and sincerity to others.
5. Maddava (gentleness) — having gentle temperament, avoiding arrogance and never defaming others.
6. Tapa (self controlling) — destroying passion and performing duties without indolence.
7. Akkodha (non-anger) — being free from hatred and remaining calm in the midst of confusion.
8. Avihimsa (non-violence) — exercising non-violence, not being vengeful.
9. Khanti (forbearance) — practicing patience, and trembling to serve public interests.
10. Avirodhana (uprightness) — respecting opinions of other persons, avoiding prejudice and promoting public peace and order.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

If you see an injustice or suffering and can fix it, fine, then fix it.
If you see an injustice or suffering and can’t fix it, then it’s karma working itself out from a previous lifetime.

Martyrdom is not encouraged.
**********
The karmic suffering you see comes from negative circumstances, which come from negative actions, which come from negative emotions, which come from defiled opinions, which come from ignorance. Better to address the wellspring for all those problems that you have in common with what you’re seeing—from which all danger and suffering originates—the defilements of your own mind.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Buddhism in non-democratic countries

Post by Aemilius »

Sravasti Dhammika presents a couple of political views that are found in the canonical and post-canonical literature:

"In the Aggañña Sutta Buddha posited a social contract theory of monarchy. In ancient days, he said, people saw the need for some form of government and so they elected from amongst themselves a person who they thought would be best able to rule them. According to the Hindu myth, the first king of India was Mahàsammata, a name whose origin the Buddha reinterpreted in support of his idea to mean `elected by the many' (D.III,93; Ja.II,352). Thus according to the Buddhist theory, kings derived their legitimacy from general consent, i.e. from the people they ruled. It followed from this that a king retained his right to rule only for so long as his subjects benefited from it. Several stories in the Jàtaka implicitly suggest that people had a right to overthrow a king who was cruel, unjust or incompetent (Ja.I,326; III,513-14; VI,156). Such ideas were far too ahead of their time and there is little evidence that they were ever applied. However, the Buddha's teaching of good governance had some influence in making kings more humane."

"While the Tipitaka and later literature always exhort kings to abide by Buddhist values, the general impression they give, almost certainly based on hard experience, is of kings as despotic, arbitrary, self-indulgent and ruthless. `Kings are fickle-minded', `Kings are cruel', `Like a raging fire, kings are dangerous to be near'(Ja.IV,432; V,345; VI,419). Some were described as being `like dust in the eye, like grit in the soup, like a thorn in the heel' (Ja.II,240). When King Milinda asked Nàgasena if they could have a discussion on the Dhamma the latter said: `Sire, I will discuss with you if you do so like a learned person and not like a king.' Milinda asked what the difference was between these two approaches and Nàgasena replied: `When the learned are discussing, beliefs are overturned, theories are unravelled, assertions are refuted, ideas are accepted, points are made and other points are made against them. When kings are discussing they say something and punish anyone who disagrees with it' (Mil.28-9)."

(from Guide to Buddhism A 2 Z)
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Post Reply

Return to “Engaged Buddhism”