Buddhist Ethics and International Relations

BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

J. M. Kitagawa

This article was written as a commentary on the paper by Professor R. H. L. Slater of Harvard entitled The Implications of Buddhist Ethics for International Relations. which he presented at the conference of the Church Peace Union at Princeton, September 25, 1959. Dr. Shoson Miyamoto, visiting professor of Buddhist philosophy at the University of Chicago, 1958-59, who had originally agreed to write the critique, could not undertake the task because of his commitment to the Conference on Philosophy East and West held at the University of Hawaii. Professor Miyamoto, being a recognized authority on Mahayana Buddhism, would have made a valuable contribution to the discussion on this important question. The present writer, who was asked to take Dr. Miyamoto's place at the last minute, can only make a few sketchy remarks. Dr. Slater rightly states that Buddhist ethics must be seen in its total context: It belongs to a whole, rich, varied context of religious thought and practice, with twenty-five hundred years of history behind it. The total context, in Dr. Slater's sense, includes the historical context, the aspect which he excluded from his paper. I am inclined to f eel, however, that a very brief reexamination of the historical context of Buddhism is essential for our understanding of the present-day ethos of Buddhism. At the expense of oversimplification, I wish to depict three historic stages of Buddhism-(1) Early Buddhism, (2) Buddhism under King Asoka, and (3) Modern Buddhism. (1) Early Buddhism: Some of the contemporary Buddhist philosophers accept the view that Buddhism is a way of life following from the accept- ance of a certain set of propositions which are considered to represent the facts of existence pertaining to the life and destiny of man in the

-777- BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) (2) universe. But, as E. J. Thomas reminds us, Buddhism began not with a body of doctrine but with the formation of a society bound by certain (1) rules. The external similarities between the Buddhist community and other groups of ascetics in India tend to obliterate the unique character of the Buddhist samgha. According to Brahman orthodoxy, the cosmic, eternal dharma sanctioned and supported the empirical social order. Buddhists and Buddhism revolted not only against the hollowness of the Brahman ritua- lism of Buddha's time but more fundamentally against the metaphysico. social principles of Brahmanism. The burden of Gotama's message was that the Dharma could not be apprehended by observing external religious practices. Early Buddhists believed that the cosmic Dharma was fully realized by Gotama's Enlightenment, and that Dharma was integrally re- lated to the Samgha, which alone provided the path of deliverance. Hence the Threefold Affirmation in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Samgha 1 From the beginning, Buddhism was conducive to philosophical inquiry. However, what concerned Gotama was not a metaphysical explanation of the universe but the salvation of finite beings. Equally important was Go- tama's insistence on the importance of moral discipline. According to early Buddhism, right conduct (sila) is the prerequisite of meditation (samadhi) and insight (Panna) abhinna), and both in turn are prerequisites for attain- ing liberation (vimutti, tanha-kkhya) and the experience of Nirvana. Pro- fessor Bahm rightly observes that the middle way is not merely a way (2) to the goal, but is, in a fundamental sense, the goal itself. Professor Pachow ably argues that all the cardinal moral principles of (3) early Buddhism were taken from Brahmanism. What was novel in Bud- dhist ethics was the context in which moral discipline was placed. For example, early Buddhism had no political or social philosophy. We learn

(1) Thomas, Edward J., The History of Buddhist Thought, New York: Barnes & Noble, (Second Edition), 1951, p. 14. (2) Bahm, A. J., Philosophy of the Buddha, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958, p. 78. (3) Paschow, W., A Comparative Study of the Pratimoksa, Santiniketan: The Sino-Indian Cultural Society, 1955.

-776- (3) BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) from the Pall Mahaparinibbana Sutta that Gotama took for granted the legitimate existence of a secular political community: so long as the ri- ghtful protection, defence, and support shall be fully provided for the Arahats among them, so that Arahats from a distance may enter the realm, and that the Arahats therein may live at peace It is evident that Gota- ma did not advocate a new Buddhist socio-political theory; he was primarily concerned with the proper relationship between the Buddhist Com- munity and the political realm, and he defined the relationship between them from the perspective of the samgha. (2) Buddhism under King Asoka: The relationship between the Samgha and the socio-poltical order underwent a radical transformation under the reign of Asoka. He recognized the universal message in the Dharma, but the Dharma he advocated was a kind of applied Buddhist ethics, applicable to all men, Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist. His appointment of the Dharma- maharata (Ministers of the Dharma) implied that Buddhism, for the first time in its history, had to shoulder the responsibility of guiding not only the seekers and believers but a complex society, nation and civilization. Under Asoka's leadership the Buddhist community, here using the term in its broad sense, became in effect the total nation and could develop, potentially at least, into a world-wide community, embracing peoples and nations outside India. Likewise, the Buddha was no longer portrayed as an unknown Indian ascetic; he came to be viewed as a deified spiritual monarch (atideva, devadeva or devatideva), who was represented on this earth by a Cakravartin (an ideal universal monarch). Later Buddhist rulers, for example, King Tissa in Ceylon, the Sui Emperor Wen Ti in China, and Prince Shotoku in Japan, were greatly influenced by Asoka's vision of what Buddhism ought to be. It is our contention that the Buddhist political ethics cannot be understood without taking into account this Asokan turn. Buddhism from the period of Asoka was no longer a narrow path of liberation; it became the bearer of a civilization, which was in essence an admixture of Buddhism and Hindu civilization. Asoka called the Bud- dhist missionary work a peaceful conquest through Dharma. We read in

-775- BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) (4) the Rock Edict (XIII): And such a conquest has been achieved by the Beloved of the Gods (Asoka) not only here in his own domain but also in the territories bordering his domain Wherever Buddhism was trans- planted, it was accompanied by the art of writing, technology, commerce, and the Brahrnanic concept of the divine king. Two factors influenced the development of Buddhist socio-political ethics in Southeast Asia and the Far East. The first was the cultural pattern of juxtaposition and insularity, and the second was the religious pattern of plural belongingness. For example, India and China existed side by side from time immemorial, but with the exception of the Buddhist missionary work both Indian and Chinese cultures developed with relative insularity and without mutual intercourse between them. Neither India nor China had any clear principle in dealing with foreign powers, except in trade, although each had elaborate procedures in dealing with its own satel- lite nations and peoples. In other words, international relations in the modern sense of the word was not a real issue in Asia until the modern period. The religious pattern of plural belongingness, to use Professor Rock- ing's phrase, developed in all parts of Asia. For example, in China Buddhism, existed side by side with Confucianism and Taoism, in Japan Buddhism co-existed with Shinto, in Tibet with the Bon Cult, and in Burma with Nat worship. Corollary to this was the development of the multivalue systems, according to which no one religion had to bear solely the religious and ethical responsibilities for the whole society and culture. For instance, in Japan communal and national cults were regarded as the domain of Shinto, individual and social ethics were defined in Confucian terms, and spiritual matters were delegated to Buddhism. It is readily understandable that in such a context Buddhist ethical principles were not fully applied to all the political and international problems. (3) Modern Buddhism: Few words are needed to emphasize the importance of the impact of the West on Asian religions and cultures. A far-reaching effect of modernity -the driving force behind the advance of the West-was felt in the field of education, which divided Asians

-774- (5) BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) into two categories, a minority of young intellectuals with Westernized education and the mass of people without it. This is what Coomaraswamy called the separation of literacy from culture. In the Buddhist nations, the modern elite was uprooted from its ancestral way of life, leaving indigenous culture and Buddhism to those who were less sensitive to the challenge of modern civilization. To make a long story short, in the 1920's and 1930's many Asian intellectuals who had had a Westernized education suddenly recognized, in the midst of the struggle for political independence, the strength and tenacity of their ancestral religions which they had hitherto spurned. Recognizing the need for relating themselves to their own peoples, some Asian intellectuals and leaders became converts to the traditional religions. In so doing, they did not simply return to traditional religions, they instilled the ethos of modernity into traditional religions. After World War II, many Asian nations gained political independence. In this situation, what happened in Burma was repeated in many other countries. In the words of U Kyaw Thet: Painfully aware that their national pride-even their continued existence-was manifestly debatable, the Burmese had to produce something tangible and traditional to justify their (4) future as a separate entity. They found what they needed in Buddhism. The new ethos of Buddhism is clearly seen in the ideal of a Buddhist Welfare state; the driving force behind the resurgence of Buddhism is a combined force of Buddhism and modernity. The crucial question before -us is whether or not Buddhism and modernity are compatible, for mo. dernity, in begetting a secular science and secular arts, has also inciden- (5) tally promoted a secular interpretation of state and law. Today, Buddhism faces a tension between its theoretical universalism and practical parochialism (or nationalism). The so-called Buddhist nations in Southeast Asia and the Far East confront seemingly insurmountable

(4) U Kyaw Thet, Continuity in Burma, The Atlantic, Vol. 201, No. 3 February, 1958, p. 118. (5) Hocking. William Ernest, The Coning World Civilization, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956, p. 4.

-773- BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) (6) series of problems. Among them are: First, the preservation, through proper adaptation, of their priceless cultural heritage Second, the continued integration of the various physical, political, economic, social, cultural and other orders for the sake of the art of living Third, the pre- vention of a resurgence of authoritarianism or an emergence of com- munism, and the development of democracy based upon indigenous Bud- dhist principles and practices Fourth, a careful study of the processs and consequences of cultural borrowing Fifth, the recognition that life values rather than economic motives or military expediency should guide the practice of obtaining collective security through collective responsibility. Sixth, the emancipation of both customary and statutory law from the life of the people, in which social relationships are governed by the tra- (6) ditional principle of conciliation. Understandably, many people ask: Can a convinced Buddhist, who knows that things of this orld are insubstan- tial and worthless, bring to the hard and tedious task of developing a still backward and war-ravaged country the energy and perseverance the job (7) will require? What actually frustrates the new nations in Asia i s the fact that their

political independence, which they struggled so hard to achieve, was won at the time when nation-states were no longer as important as they were before the war. Therefore, politically, Buddhist nations are compelled to share the interests and destines of the so-called Bandung Front, which, however, is divided internally by different religious, cultural and ethnic of f iliatons. Doctrinally, Buddhists can make a good case for their views on (8) world peace and universal brotherhood. But, how to implement these doc- trinal and ethical principles in practice is a serious problem. There is no question that modern Buddhism is keenly aware of the

(6) Gard, Richard A., Ideological Problems in Southeast Asia, Philosophy East and West, Vol. II, No. 4, January 1953, pp. 306-307. (7) U Kyaw Thet, op. cit., pp. 119-120. (8) Cf. Miyamoto, Shoson, Freedom, Independence and Peace in Buddhism, Philosophy East and West, Vol. I, No. 4. January 1952, pp. 30-40, and Ibid., Vol. II, No. 3, October 1952, pp. 208-225.

-772- (7) BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS J. M. Kitagawa) need to reconstruct and restate the philosophical and ethical principles of Buddhism so that they become meaningful to our time, as eloquently illus- trated by Professor Slater's references to the Buddha character, World- Embracing Love, and Dependent Origination. Among the Japanese Bud- dhists, Professor Ha jime Tan abe has recently advocated a philosophy of metanoetics. He is attempting to develop a philosohical system, taking into account the Eastern and Western philosophical insights, but is securely gro- unded in the Buddhist tradition. According to him, the only way to trans- cend noetics is to go through a metanoia in the death and resurrection experience of conversion: Therefore, the true dialectic is neither the as well as of the speculative synthesis of Hegel nor the either/or of the ethical earnestness of Kierkegaard. It is neither/nor: a thoroughgoing negativity of our immediacy (the repentance of one's radical sin) by the mercy of the Absolute, who also negates Himself for the sake of Love and Mercy. Our repentence of sin means the forgiveness (9) and negation of it by the grace of the Absolute. Following Tanabe's philosophy, Professor Takeuchi interprets the historic Buddhist concept of duhkha-samudaya (the cause and origin of suffering): With penitent heart he who is suffering concentrates his mind on the problem of his propensity to evil, which is also common to the human mind in general. And then with gratitude and rejoicing he understands how this thoroughgoing negativity (Non-Self), which is now in his inner- most self, turns out to be affirmative (Non-Self) by means of the grace and compassion of Buddha. So, contrary to philosophical thinking, religious thinking is chiefly concerned with the relation of negativity and Absolute (10) Negativity. Pratitya-samutpada theory leads in this way to nirvana. Important though the philosophical and religious ref ormulation of Bud- dhist ethics are, these efforts alone are not sufficient' for Buddhists to live in the modern world. At the occasion of the Buddha Jayanti, held in

(9) Takeucki, Yoshinori, Buddhism and Existentialism, Religion and Culture -Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich, Ed. by Walter Leibrecht, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959, p. 301. (10) Ibid., pp. 306-307.

-771- BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) (8) Tokyo in 1959, Professor Gen jun Sasaki forcefully stated: Universalism formulates a strong point for Buddhist expansion on the theoretical side, as well as a weak point on the practical side. The theoretical side of Universalism has been in the midst of the great stream of the social development. It did not fall down from heaven to the earth as a superworldly system, but was born in a long historical process. We cannot draw an artificial, line between a worldly life and a superworldly one. Although Bud- dhism has theoretically dealt with the practical subject of human beings, never- theless, practically it has taken little notice of the knowledge to approach the (11) social life and to reveal itself in the history of human beings. Apologists of Buddhism, of course, can defend its case by pointing to numerous social philanthropic and educational activities undertaken by the Buddhists historically and in the contemporary world. Some of the Buddhists ask, however, whether there are uniquely Buddhist insights which might contribute to such fundamental problems as the moral order of the universe or social justice. All, too often, the notions of liberty, justice, and welfare have been borrowed from the West without being fully digested in Buddhist terms. Many of the platforms of the Buddhist Welfare States, for example, were not derived from Buddhism itself, even though Buddhism supplies the religio-ethical incentive to carry out these goals. Also, modern nation-states, even in the, so-called Buddhist nations demand supreme loyalty from citizens, and they often regard Buddhism as a department, albeit an important one, of the state. (In all fairness, it must be pointed out that is not a unique problem in Buddhism, however.) Professor Hocking reminds us that the religious community is by definition universal in extent as in norms of will: it speaks not primarily (12) to the man-within-the-nation but to the man-wihin-the-world. From this standpoint, a far-reaching significance of various pan-Buddhist movements cannot be exaggerated. That these movements have been thus far enthu- siastically supported by the rulers and governments of the Buddhist nations

(11) Sasaki, Genjun, The Role of Buddhism in Modern Civilization-Foundation of Social Activities, Tokyo: The Association of the Buddha Jayanti, 1959. (12) Hocking, op. cit., p. 47.

-770- (9) BUDDHIST ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (J. M. Kitagawa) reflects the religious mood and political situation of Asia today. Shouldd this trend continue, however, these Buddhist ecumenical movements may become paralyzed by their close entanglements with the interests of the nation-states themselves. If, on the other hand, various pan-Buddhist movements develop as genuine religious movenents of a world-wide scale, as we all hope and pray they may, they will foster a moral unity and a psychological fraternity which are essential for just and peaceful international relations. Dukkham lokassa nasetum sukham katum tatha mama Samatthata sada hotu samsare sarato sato. Pancavassasahassani dippatu jinasasanam Palayantu mahipala dhamena sakalam pajam.

To destroy the world's ills and to bestow Happiness on it, May I always possess ability as long as I journey in Samsara. May the message of the Buddha flourish for five thousand years, May the world's rulers govern all peoples righteously. (By D. C. Vijyavardhana)

-769-