Dependent Origination of Democracy (Buddhism in Thailand)

[gavesako]

Some interesting articles worth quoting: Modern Buddhism and ideas of democracy

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion ... 70428.html
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion ... 70490.html

[gavesako]

More from the same author Paisarn Likhitpreechakul:

Angulimala, samurais and red shirts: responsibility for action

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/others/ ... 48941.html
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/others/ ... 48998.html

... Although Mahatma Gandhi and most modern Hindu thinkers would interpret Gita verses like "Holding pleasure and pain alike, gain and loss, victory and defeat, then gird thyself for battle; thus thou shalt not get evil" as addressing a spiritual battle inside oneself, fundamentalists see it literally as a validation for an actual war. Imbued in such an interpretation is the ancient Brahmanical belief that no karma - and, therefore, moral responsibility - is incurred if one detaches oneself from the actions or their results. In other words, not committing oneself to an act is as good as not committing it.
As proposed in yesterday's first part of this article, this ancient doctrine was likely held by Angulimala as a liberation philosophy before it was rebuked by the Buddha in Angulimala Sutta. Indeed, it would have been surprising if the Buddha hadn't dealt with this kind of Brahmanical soteriology after having extensively criticised its social institutions - particularly the caste system - and debated with other main rival schools on how to free oneself from cycles of rebirth.

... Had Angulimala only been emotionally insensitive to blood, then the Buddha's statement that he hadn't ceased violence would have sounded obvious - like a butcher being told that his hands are bloody - and solicited a "So what?" response. But if Angulimala had been philosophically desensitised to violence, then the Buddha's argumentative viewpoint would truly have caught him by surprise - like a high priest being told his lifelong worship actually leads to hell. It would certainly jolt Angulimala into an awakening - like a "moon coming out of hiding cloud".

[gavesako]

Karma confusion and the theology of Thai exceptionalism
Paisarn Likhitpreechakul

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/others/ ... 60389.html

... This religion is underpinned and its social order buttressed by a sort of karma theology, turning Buddhism on its head. According to this doctrine, we were born into the station we deserve, as a farmer, a salary worker or a hi-so, following acts in our past lives. The disabled, the poor and women are said to earn their predicaments and "lower" statuses because they made insufficient meritorious deeds or, worse, committed sins in their past lives. (The list of second-class humans has been extended to include homosexuals, transgenders, people with chronic diseases, crime victims, and even disaster victims.) Therefore, we all must behave according to our station, gender and age as prescribed by the dharma (morality) so that we can all have better next lives and to prevent chaos and the collapse of Thai society.

The Buddha would immediately recognise Thailand, with the compartmentalisation of people and prescribed roles, as a modern variation of the Brahmanistic caste society which he rigorously criticised throughout his life. He wouldn't imagine it to be anything inspired by his proclamation of humanity's oneness in the Vasettha Sutta - the first religious teacher to do so in an age when castes, sexism and racism strongly prevailed.

But why let the Buddha get in the way of Thai exceptionalism? Our karma-schmarma theology is so much better because it has also given us a perfect theocracy for social control, since "Trai Phoom Phra Ruang" - with its promise of heaven and threat of hell - was written some 700 years ago.

Buddhist scholar David R Loy wrote in his book "Money, Sex, War, Karma", "Taken literally, karma justifies the authority of political elites, who therefore must deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those who have neither. It provides the perfect theodicy: If there is an infallible cause-and-effect relationship between one's action and one's fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it's already built into the moral fabric of the universe."

With our karma-schmarma Law (with a capital "L"), other laws don't matter. "Western" ideas are welcomed but must be "upgraded" to suit our Panglossian society. Because the Law doesn't see people as equals, the idea of a democratic government "of the people, by the people and for the people" isn't good enough. We demand to be ruled only by "good people". And if the man-made constitution can't guarantee that, it's okay to tear it up again and again.

Since our society is already perfect under the Law, there's no need whatsoever to discuss what kind of society we want to be. No need for social justice or human rights, because those who are underprivileged in our society are so because they are karmically inferior and lazy - nothing to do with our economic and social system.

[Ytrog]

Interesting Bhante. I hope that they will get a real democracy soon. I must note however that most western democracies are actually more particracies.

[gavesako]

Lifting the veil of ignorance: Buddhism and justice
by Paisarn Likhitpreechakul, The Nation, December 16, 2011

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php ... 28,0,0,1,0

...


Home > Asia Pacific > South East Asia > Thailand

Lifting the veil of ignorance: Buddhism and justice
by Paisarn Likhitpreechakul, The Nation, December 16, 2011

Bangkok, Thailand -- The 20-year jail sentence handed down to Mr Amphon (last name withheld), aka Ah Kong (southern Chinese for "grandfather"), for sending four SMS messages deemed offensive to the monarchy, has stirred a debate on the Thai justice system.

The relevant "lese majeste" law has also became a hot topic, as it has increasingly become a tool for political oppression rather than protection of the monarchy. Among the many views expressed, some Buddhists cite the law of karma to justify the verdict, saying that the grandfather got exactly what he deserved.

It's true that "you reap what you sow" is more or less the Buddha's teaching on karma at the spiritual level. But when the teachings are applied to the social level, there are many other complicating factors at play that many Thais sarcastically say, "Tham dee dai dee mee thee nai. Tham chua dai dee mee thom pai." (Show me those who reap benefits from good deeds. Plenty of people reap benefits from evil deeds.)

In Sivaka sutta, the Buddha clearly rejected the view that "whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all is caused by previous karma". He gave examples of physical, biological and social factors as additional causes for present experience, concluding that holders of such views "go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world".

Attributing everything to karma is therefore not the Buddha's teaching on karmas but the doctrine of karmic determinism rejected by the Buddha. As it can justify everything and mean nothing, a statement like "People got flooded because of karma" only gives a sense of complacency and precludes legitimate discussions on social justice. The Buddha, in Kutadanta sutta and Cakkavatti- Sihanada sutta, told stories in which social phenomena were caused by social and economic injustice such as maldistribution of social wealth.

In Tittha sutta, the Buddha also explained that the doctrine of karmic determinism would mean that people do good and bad deeds as a result of past karma. Therefore, nobody would be responsible for their acts, and there would be no desire and effort to do what should be done and avoid what shouldn't be done. Obviously such a fatalistic view doesn't constitute a religion - let alone the Buddha's. For example, believing that someone is murdered because of karma raises the questions whether the murderer, as an instrument of karma, is morally responsible, why he should be punished, or why he shouldn't do it again when he feels like it.

[gavesako]

Buddhism and human rights: the Kantian dhamma
Paisarn Likhitpreechakul
The Nation January 11, 2012 1:00 am

... Some Thais would argue that humans are born unequal, like the digits on one's hand, implying fixed roles and discriminating treatments. Although often attributed to the Buddha, this justification for a caste-like system was actually promoted by Phraya Anumanratchathon in the 1960s to support the Pibunsongkram nationalistic regime.

In contrast, Buddhists elsewhere have long supported human rights. In his 1991 book on the subject, Sri Lankan scholar LPN Perera established that the UDHR is completely in agreement with Buddhism, by identifying parallels in the Buddhist canon to every UDHR article. However, in Are There Human Rights in Buddhism? Buddhist ethicist Damien Keown asked an important question on how to philosophically "ground" the concept of human rights in Buddhism. Here, the author would like to propose a preliminary answer by taking a step back to the origin of human rights. ...

Kant insists that we have the power to rise above our desire, because if there's no such autonomy then there's no moral responsibility. A flying rock cannot be held culpable for breaking someone's skull, but its thrower can. In Mahabodhi Jataka, the Buddha made crushing arguments against theistic and karmic determinism on the same ground that they deprive humans of moral desert.

The Buddha pointed out, "It is volition, monk, that I declare to be karma. Having willed, one performs an action by body, speech or mind." Similarly it's in human intention that Kant places the moral worth of an action. "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will. A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition; that is, it is good in itself, and considered by itself it is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it in favour of any inclination, nay even of the sum total of all inclinations."

In other words, for an action to be morally good in Kantian philosophy, it is not enough that it conforms to the moral law - it must also be done for the sake of the moral law, not for its results. Even in this respect, the Buddha agrees, "He who grasps at neither 'I' nor 'mine', neither in mentality nor in materiality; who grieves not for what is not; such a one indeed is called a Bhikkhu." "He who is vigilant; He whose mind is not overcome by lust and hatred; He who has discarded both merits and demerits; for such a one there is no fear." ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion ... 73484.html

[gavesako]

Buddhism and human rights: The journey to the west
Paisarn Likhitpreechakul
The Nation January 12, 2012 1:00 am

The Chinese classic Journey to the West, based on the Tang Dynasty monk Xuanzang's pilgrimage to India, is actually an allegory of a Buddhist spiritual journey. Also known as Adventures of the Monkey God, it is a fitting tool to compare Buddhism and Kantian philosophy.

As fantastically explained by Venerable Khemananda in his commentary to Journey, the Buddhist way to enlightenment is allegorised by the arduous voyage to India which Xuanzang and his company must take while battling spiritual obstacles in the form of hostile demons and selfish humans. On the other hand, Kantian reasoning, which can achieve enlightened altruism, can be thought of as the spontaneous Monkey King, symbolising emerging wisdom (panna). Although he can fly to India and have an audience with the Buddha (enlightenment), Monkey can never remain there. His indispensable role is to guide the whole troupe.

Represents forming morality (sila), the gluttonous Pigsy often lapses into greed and lust and must be constantly kept in check. Both Kant and the Buddha, therefore, formulated principles for human ethics. As all humans are of equal dignity, Kant says that we must not put our needs above those of others. The Buddha also says, "On traversing all directions with the mind; one finds no one anywhere dearer than oneself; likewise everyone holds himself most dear."

Because an ethical principle is aimed as a law for all beings with equal dignity, it must be equally valid for all. To ensure this, Kant says it must pass the test of being universalised. That is, when adopted by everyone it can never be in conflict with itself.

In Veludvara Sutta, the Buddha demonstrates how such thought experiment can be done. When villagers asked him how they should fulfill their specific wishes, desires and hopes, he told them to reflect on how each of them desires happiness and is averse to suffering, how something such as being deprived of life will not be agreeable to him, and what is disagreeable to him is to others too. Having reflected thus, he would "abstain from the destruction of life, exhort others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speak in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life." The Buddha then invited them to apply the same reasoning to theft, adultery and so on. ...

In the end, the naysayers may be right about one thing: human rights principles emerged from and lead to the "West". But there's also something else they should know. A "Journey to the West" may very well turn out to take our society closer to the land of the Buddha in a way that traditional Thai Buddhism throughout history never could.



http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion ... 73551.html