Towards a Buddhist Manifesto

[Dharmavidya]

In this four minute film Dharmavidya talks about the importance of examining the social and the personal implications of Buddhism together, each aspect throwing light on the other.




Assume, if you will, that Buddhists have come to power. The election is over; the new president, Mrs Karuna Prajna, has taken office. Her prime minister, Mr Ananda Navamarga, has selected his cabinet. The PLC (Pure Land Congress) Party has a working majority. The opposition socialist, conservative, nationalist and liberal parties are, for the moment, in eclipse. The hopeful population waits in anticipation.

# What kind of society or culture does the new government want to bring about?
# What kind of actions in the world do they want the nation to undertake?
# What measures might they introduce, and what are the pros and cons of those measures?
# What transitional problems will they face?

Let us assume that the country has a developed economy with the same kind of levels of prosperity and technological sophistication as one sees in Western Europe or North America. Let us also assume that while the population has a fair measure of goodwill for the new government, Mr and Mrs Average have not turned into St Francis and Mother Teresa overnight.

The invitation here is for us to brainstorm what such a government might do. Can we clarify what the Buddhist social agenda actually looks like? If we want to get into fine detail about particular measures we can start new individual threads (like the one of Carbon Tax, for instance)

[This thread is stimulated by the aposite comment by Jorawar in the thread What is Buddhist about Engaged Buddhism?.]

[richard meyers]

This is challenging stuff! In many ways a bit too big a question for me to answer, but here's a few thoughts. A bit of a splurge I'm afraid.

The agenda would be around being an example for other nations: sustainable practices in industry, agriculture, 'greening' the inner cities; a functional, free at the point of need, comprehensive health service; a school system that had respect for children, something like a 'Summerhill' model. I would like to see the classroom as a place of safety, rather than threat; where the childs gifts were honoured rather than their failings emphasised.

Right now, there is no question, but that we are failing our young people. Actually, to speak of failing is an understatement! The values we, through the mass-media, impart to our children are in so many ways the opposite of Buddhistic - selfishness, greed and a cynical response to life. In fact these are not values at all, but the absence of them. In place of love, fairness, open-heartedness and compassion, there is a void into which floods fear, aggression, consumerism and an addiction to anything that will give the illusion of safety. Not a good start to life.

The answer to the problem though is not an easy one to find. All I can come up with is some kind of Utopian vision not unlike Aldous Huxley in 'Island', and sadly the end of that novel speaks volumes!

When we look at those people that have had the deepest influence (in the main) for good in history: Siddhartha Gotama, Jesus Christ, St Francis of Assisi, Mohatma Gandhi... in the main these have been examples of non violence and yet extremely noble and heroic figures. The problem with nation states is that they seem unable to hold to the highest ideals as exemplified by the lives of these men and women.

The assumption is then, of a country self-sufficient in basic requirements, with no need to compromise on its integrity?

All too often the good intentions of politicians, inspiring aspirations to do good in the world, get lost or watered down when actually elected to power. The pressures from outside economically are just too great.
Any actions on an international scale would be around alleviating suffering. Certainly no military interventionist stuff as in our recent history. Ethically, this is a real problem from a Buddhist perspective - if miltary action is the only way to stop mass genocide say - what options do we have? I've always sympathised with those elected to make these decisions on our behalf.

My initial thoughts around this idea were that such an eventuality (a Buddhist government in the UK!) was that it would be the kiss of death to the Dharma. Then I remembered reading about King Ashoka and how following conversion to Buddhism, he initiated many years of peace and prosperity... How to bring the warring, disparate factions of our own psyche's is difficult enough...
To be honest I don't know, the question has me stumped. I wonder if Buddhism works best out of the seat of power, as a sort of leaven in the world, influencing individuals on a heart level (and this includes politicians!).

One thing I would like to see is equal rights for non human sentient beings, trees and plants generally, mountains too - all too often blasted to smithereens for stone and used in road making agrigates. More nature reserves in our inner cities would allow our children to encounter more foxes, newts, frogs, toads, dragonflies and flag irises. The sacredness of the natural world would definately be emphasised. Biology in our schools would be taught from the 'processes of nature' angle, with no slaughtering or dissection of beings, observational trips to your local pond. "Does the water-scorpion have the Buddha nature" or not? 'Interbeing' would be on the curriculem, with overnight stays camping out taking in the night sky. In much the same way as office workers under Chairman Mao were asked to spend time on the land occasionally, I would suggest similar forays into nature for our desk bound workers. Maybe we could have a 'little green book'? I'm joking!

[David Chapman]

This is a mighty tall order. Everything would require overhaul from bottom to top, but the application of dependent origination, the four noble truths, and the eightfold path would serve well when applied to society. Isn't that the reason for individual training? It is a revolution from within that must happen of its' own accord on a grander scale.
If it is forced, then it will fail, and if things become too confined or restricted then we have already abandoned the Dharma and lost our way.
Certainly we must also be aware that everything that rises eventually falls, nothing is permanent, so we would need to prepare for the inevitable by continuing our training on a personal and social level.

Dharma allows for diversity, and I am quite certain not everyone would accept the Dharma. Not everyone is prone to being a 'Buddhist,' but one must also ask the question, just what IS a Buddhist? I don't believe Buddha was a Buddhist, I think he just had a vision, a goal, and a road map to get there.
What about the teachings on attachment and non-attachment? Buddha once said, in regards to the precepts, that one must not be attached to them, one must not grasp or cling to them. The simile of the snake and the raft on the river. Not everyone will be prone to the same type of teaching either, thus the reason for all the diverse teachings, Upaya.

How would all that apply? Must we really view it as Government? I think the main struggle will be in ultimately relinquishing the idea of Government itself. Not necessarily all out Anarchy, but I believe the Buddha's approach proposed something different entirely.
Government is mechanical, not natural, it does not arise of its' own accord. That is why, though he succeeded for a time, Ashoka failed, his empire fell, because he did not have the vision to look beyond the Imperial ideal, the Government ideal. Either way you hack it, he was still a Monarch, a ruler, with subjects and ruling power over the masses and the realm alike.
That is also why Communism ultimately fails, because it never got passed the Socialist stage of development, it never got passed the conventional idea of Government.
It is just the same with Capitolism, Nationalism, Conservativism, and Liberalism. No conceived model can ever rise to the task because it was conceived mechanically, artificially. Again, the Buddha implied something Organic.

We can see hints of this if we take this teaching and, after applying it to ourselves, begin to apply it to society at large; then the path becomes clear and the seeds are planted.
Ultimately I am uncertain if even Engaged Buddhism is up to the task as it still seems a bit mechanistic to me, as do most of the paths.
Sincerety, a change of heart are key.

[Robert McCarthy]

Its an interesting situation. Assuming our Buddhist cabinet act as the Buddha in his day. I wonder who would volunteer to be whip. We have a government committed to work towards creating their Pureland through compassion.
I have to suspect that in a very short space there would be a vacuum instead of public governance- What is Buddhist about social control backed by force? What is government without social control backed by force?
I cannot think of many things this new government could do. It would be wonderful to be turning weapons into ploughshares, if the country actually had some real funds these could be used to help end some suffering. I would hope that our government then gets out of town quickly.

[Joaquim Monteiro]

Dear Dharmavidya:


I found your suggestion very interesting, and it reminded me of several discussions and experiences I had in Japan. Seem from one standpoint, your idea of the PLC looks like a Buddhist version of John Rawls "original position". It is interesting to note that in the japanese Buddhist struggle against the nationalization of the Yasukuni Shrine there were several similar discussions that centered in the relationship between the 48 Vows of Amitabha and Japans pacifist Constitution.
This is a very important matter, but I have only one reservation : the Pure Land is the ground for our criticism of the real world, but it can never be realized in real historical time. This dynamic, dialectical relationship between the Pure Land and the historical world is essential for maintainig its critical power.


Thank you very much-Gashô.
Joaquim Monteiro. ( Shaku Shoshin )

[Kenny Lewis]

# What kind of society or culture does the new government want to bring about?

The new government wants to sustain a culture of ownership and responsibilty through education, the Buddhist social agenda is really a personal social agenda, over succesive generations we have been taught that the real socio economic power lies in far off capitial cities and large offices and governments the like. This notion would have to be gently undone on mass over time. A timely job in itself - currently most people believe: no governing power means chaos and anarchy.

Society, Government and culture are all personal issues and can be managed by the individual for the individual. The Pure Land Congress seeks to empower the invidvidual ( not power to the people - more like power to the person) in order to build a government of concensus.

The ongoing problem is the age old problem, most of us want things to be the way they are, that's why things are the way they are. It all turns then on education and the completness of it. When enough of us want change, then there will be change. As history has shown and will show again.

You can show someone a door, but it is they who must step through. It is not the fault of past leaders that the world is as it is, by that token just adding a Pure Land Congress would make no difference, without subsequently empowering each individual - again I say, this is not the same as power to the people. x

[Dharmavidya]

OK, well, let us carry our imaginary story forward a stage.



Buddhist President Sworn In

In her acceptance speech, Mrs Karuna Prajna continually returned to her election slogan "for the sake of all".

She began by saying that the overall aim of the new government will be to seek those measures that will encourage citizens and nations to live noble lives within the principles of compassionate ethics, having regard for the importance of doing, on a human scale, things of intrinsic worth, embodying worthy motives and doing, in the short term, things that will create conditions for benefit to all beings in the long run. "A time will come when the citizens of this land will spend a larger proportion of their time in action for the common good than they spend upon seeking personal gain, on aiding others rather than indulging themselves. We cannot achieve this change overnight, but this is our goal: to reorient our people so that sharing, generosity and commitment to common purposes become major sources of satisfaction for all. The people will find a natural joy in helpful and creative activity." She reminded those assembled of the principles established by Shakyamuni for the preservation of good heart in a society, namely: there should be frequent community meetings at all levels of society, participative decision making, good conduct in assemblies, respect for tradition, avoidance of excessive laws and laws that cannot be obeyed, protection of the vulnerable and respect for those who have wisdom, experience and holiness. We must legislate in some matters, but this will not basically be a coercive government. We aim rather to be creative - to create the conditions where the whole ethos of society is raised up.

She enunciated a set of principles for her new government and for the nation:

1. An emphasis upon the collective good and recognition that the supreme good is the spiritual health of the society. Let our watchword be that each shall strive for the sake of all.

2. An emphasis upon personal cultivation and leadership development recognising that a healthy society depends heavily upon the presence of wise, compassionate, co-operative leadership at every level. This must be learnt and then further developed through experience. She called for
i) A reform of education according to a philosophy that places education per se and sound values at the core with utilitartian considerations secondary;
ii) Programmes for character development and leadership training based on the Dharma principles of sharing, honourable conduct, generosity, straighforwardness, impartiality, composure, non-hatred, non-violence, patience and non-revenge.
iii) "Every constructive activity that promotes the well-being of people and other sentient beings is to be held in high dignity and honoured."
iv) Those with potential for such leadership were to be advanced without regard for their class, ethnic or religious background.

3. Building the infrastructure of co-operative society
i) Encouragement to co-operative living and co-operative enterprise
ii) Respect for faith communities and encouragement of inter-faith harmony and understanding
iii) Encouragement for arts, crafts and both traditional and creative culture
iii) Improvement to communication and mass transportation systems
iv) In the economy to follow the principle of 'small is beautiful' wherever possible
v) In the maintenance of social order to apply the principles of equity, localisation, restitution, mediation and genuine rehabilitation.
vi) Measures for the recirculation of wealth: She said that the government is not against the accumulation of private wealth, but is concerned to prevent inequality reaching the kind of extreme that cuts one part of society off from another or leads to social unrest or oppression and exploitation. Similarly, the government is not in favour of the cultivation of dependency, but will take steps to empower the poor and provide them with opportunities. Those who have wealth who use it in socially constructive ways will be honoured.
vii) Respect for the learned and for professions
viii) Avoidance of over-administration. This is to be a value-inspired rather than goal-oriented or complaint-avoidance society.

4. Speaking of respect for the land, she pledged
i) Increase in areas of forest and wilderness
ii) Reduction of dependence upon fish and animal resources
iii) Involvement of a larger proportion of the population in food production, especially through horticulture
iv) Energy efficiency and reduction of waste and pollution
v) International co-operation on green issues

5. Search for International Peace
i) Emphasis upon the good of the world as a whole rather than a narrowly nationalist agenda,
ii) Avoidance of polarisation: to seek alliances in such a way as to defuse conflict situations rather than to support favoured nations, even if this sometimes means supporting countries with a different ideology
iii) Overseas aid based upon person to person and village to village grass-roots volunteer and friendship programmes rather than top-down grand schemes.
iv) Seeking to remove the conditions that give rise to international bitterness.
v) Measures to reduce the suffering of refugees and the problems posed by large scale international migration.
vi) Restraint from interference in other countries' affairs: to only engage in foreign military intervention when this can be clearly seen to be the only practical means to reduce massive suffering.
She spoke of the need for a country to have a substantial degree of self-sufficiency at the same time as encouraging friendship and exchange between people from many parts of the world, recognising that this is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but suggesting that achieving a higher level of self-sufficiency might take priority sometimes over maximizing wealth since this put one in a better position to sustain relations with neighbours free from unfairness and fear.

She said that the above measures were to be seen not as a final blueprint but as the first stage in a progressive multi-phase renaissance of true values, that the prime minister and cabinet would be charged with the task of bringing forth specific measures to implement these ideals or to improve upon them, and she exhorted the people to carry this programme forward themselves saying that where groups within society wanted to advance schemes that took these principles further these would be looked on favourably. Her government wishes to encourage a spirit of nation wide debate conducive to reform and to encourage a sense of local empowerment and responsibility. The principle of local initiative meant that progress would inevitably not be uniform across the country as a whole. The government would seek to exploit opportunities for constructive experimentation presented by such diversity, would encourage local communities to learn from one another, and would develop an infrastructure to facilitate such cross-fertilization and synergistic development. At the same time, hers would not be a government that sought change for change's sake. No prior assumption should be made that existing institutions were bad until proven otherwise. These reforms are not intended to blame or oppress but to uplift and inspire. The Buddha taught us to enjoy tradition and respect the social capital that has been built up over the ages, yet to change things constructively when doing so clearly will bring about a gain in well-being without undue disadvantages.

Finally she ended her address with the call: Sharing together we shall save our world for the sake of all.

[Stuart Young]

Hi

Here are my first thoughts:

Free public transport for every one with massive public investment to ensure that public transport is of a very high comfortable and efficient standard and that it takes people where they want to go when they want to go. Travelling on public transport needs to be an experience people want to undertake.The money could be found through reducing military spending especially on nuclea weapons. The advantages would be fewer cars, less CO2 and stress and quicker travelling.

Second I would concentrate on ensuring that every member of the population had the means of pursuing meaningful employment or right livlihood.

I would also invest heavily in mental health services, having meditation teachers attached to GP practices and hospitals, this could be funded through the likely reduction in the medicines budget.

Long live the Buddhist Republic!

[Hein]

Hi Dharmavidya

Thanks for this interesting and contemporary topic. The Americans had their elections last year and we (South Africa) had ours on 22 April. The title "Towards a Buddhist Manifesto" is also appropriate as I think a "final" Buddhist manifesto might never come into being. Everything is transientand and in constant flux.

What is contained in Mrs Karuna Prajna's (Of "Prajna Paramita Republic", I assume *lol*) speech is laudable and contain lofty ideals, but it is still that; a declaration of intent. The test is in the "tasting".

What I wish to propose is that a "Buddhist Manifesto" as a political or government document should not exist. And the reasons I wish to advance in support for my proposition are the following:

(1) religious (or rather spiritual) matters are made policy. I doubt if the Buddha intented his Way to part of a government. That does not mean he would have been opposed to Buddhist principles incorporated into governance. Edit (or shake around) the speech of of Mrs Prajna and in addition replace "Shakyamuni" with "Jesus", "Moses" or "God" and it sounds like something well-known to us.

(2) Buddhist principles (as with all spiritual principles) are meant for the individual and not for an amorphous entity like a "state",

(3) any community always have somebody who is "rebelious" or obstructive. How is a "Buddhist Government" intending to deal in loving-kindness with such a person in accordance with the dictates of the realities of governing a modern state and still be kind to the person?

(4) the very nature of Buddhism will have to bring about a revolution. A totally different approach to the kind of governments and form of governments we are accustomed to would have to take place. A new form of Constitution and way to govern should be considered. Such government should contain all the elements of Buddhism, but should nevertheless be practical in its implimentation to be of any real value to the people.

These are then briefly the reasons I think a Buddhist manifesto as a political document is not easily attainable without changing the nature of government. Perhaps the Constitution of Prince Shotoku is the closes we will get to something like it.

Lastly, does the current political parties in our democracies not contain something of the Buddhist principle in their policies/manifestos? For example; during the recent elections I decided that environmental issues and animal welfare are the things that concern me the most, because our ignorant, grasping and angry nature let us easily forget that the world is not only about us (humans). My choice was narrowed down to two parties and I chose the one that will be the stronger opposition (in which it turned out I was correct). None of the parties mentioned the Buddha or Buddhism or even God/Jesus. I even doubt that I would have voted for a party that centred itself around Buddhism (incidentally all parties with "Christian" in their name or with a "Christian" Manifesto suffered huge losses).

Thus in conclusion it is my wish that there may never be a "Buddhist" government, but rather governments which have "Buddhist principles".

[Dharmavidya]

What is right and what is good? What should we do? When Plato composed The Republic he was interested in throwing light upon the concept of justice, which to an ancient Greek, seems to have been roughly equivalent to what we might mean by goodness. His approach was to debate what a perfect city state might look like. If we knew what the state should be like then we would know what our lives should be like. This methodology from the collective to the individual had a good deal of merit. In Buddhism, the emphasis is generally upon the individual, but the Buddha is never coy when asked about an individual's social duty. So perhaps in Buddhism the preferred direction is from the individual to the social. What is apparent overall, I think, is that the two cannot be disentangled. What would a country in which there was no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no lies and no intoxicants be like? Is it a practical proposition given human nature? What is the true goal? Is the ideal a matter of remaking what it is to be a human being or is there something that Buddhists can do in the real world? If the answer is negative, then this is a very otherworldly religion. Shakyamuni does not appear as an other worldly person and had he been it is doubtful if he could have started a movement hat is still in business 25 centuries later. If, as the Lotus Sutra implies, Buddhism is ll about skilful means, then a consideration of the social consequences of our principles may be a good place to start.

[Sundari]

As a follow-on to the contributions already made about the priorities of the new government, I would like to put this one proposal in the voice of Mr Ananda Navamarga:

As a preliminary step, and as an indication of the approach that this new administration intends to bring, the government declares that the final week of May 2009 will be a holiday during which all non-essential work will cease. The short period between now and that week will enable the government to engage in discussions with the business sector and with essential services about how this can be managed so that all will have an opportunity for free time which is not normally available to them. The government appreciates that this will entail significant adjustments, and will make every effort to support, with public funding if necessary, the reorganisation of for instance hospital services and food supplies, to enable time off to be taken by the maximum number of people. The government requests individuals to prepare by ensuring that they will not need to shop during that week or do routine tasks such as going to the bank or the hairdresser.

The week is intended to be a time for rest and reflection, to pause in the cycle of production and consumption. If local authorities and the vountary and faith sector wish to arrange for public conversations to take place to talk about aspirations and needs, the government would welcome this. Clearly not all ideas can be adopted as policy, but the government rather wishes to create a break in 'business as usual' - an indication of our good faith as a government that genuinely wishes to find a new way. I hope that this measure will be welcomed.

[Katrien Sercu]

This subject gives me a lot of enthusiasm and thouhgts during my daily life. What is fundamental in a way to 'lead' a country? The way you lead is the way you live and the way you introduce measures in the society. Essential is to be convinced that all you do (as a leader or as a simple member) is there for the benefit of all, that all the differences between people, ideals, cultures, concerns... have their place and their function, even when I do not understand. The big issue could be that consciousness grows about the importance of differences: are they a danger or a wealth, an amplification or a threat? This implies that we are convinced of the limitations/restrictions in what we are or what we want: the consequences of beeing 'a foolish beeing' and the happiness that other foolish beeings complete us partly and that Amida completes the whole univers! If we learn this from childhood, then we stand more open, trustfull to life, people and all the challenges. If I feel myself as much a world citizen as a Belgian woman, then my field of vision is bigger and so more honest...for the benefit of all.
I think that politicians would first go to a school, specially for this job, as a form of order...to get the time to learn profoundly the basis way of living and the needed expertise. This is a job, full of effort and inspiration, so you have to prepare this carefully.
Working in my garden, I meet the difficulties of my thougts! All creatures have their place in the garden, but...the slugs or snails eat the basilicum, dragon, flowers...all the new green I planted last week! They have so much place and food, but they eat 'my plants and flowers'!! Beautiful trees and bushes grown so expansive, that other die. When I want to give place to all, then I have to limit and...to kill some parts of them. When I let it grow...then some trees will survive at the cost of others. What are I'm dooing then?
Gardening I learn about a buddhist Manifesto!
This where some thoughts, difficult written with a dictionnary, but...I like it! Now I take the time to read other comments.

[Dharmavidya]

Thank you Katrien. Yes, I learn a lot while gardening too! I think that the question of he nature of leadership is particularly interesting and I will start a new thread on that topic.