CHAPTER VIII

BUDDHISM AND DEMOCRACY

KIRTI BUNCHUA

            As both terms, "Buddhism" and "democracy", are very broad, this chapter will limit their scope.

            The term "Buddhism" here will be limited to only Theravada Buddhism, that is, to the teaching of the Buddha found in the Tipataka and clarified by the traditional commentaries of the Theravada School. To open to Mahayana Buddhism would add more and more later scriptures whose canonical list varies from school to school within the Mahayana tradition.

            As for the term "democracy", we must distinguish between a "democratic regime" and the "democratic spirit" in a regime. It is possible to have a democratic regime with an absolutist spirit, and an absolute regime with a democratic spirit, not to mention regimes that use the name "democratic" for purposes of obfuscation. For this chapter to take the term "democracy" for the government or regime would be anachronistic, because in the time of the Buddha, such an idea would have seemed impossible and absurd. Hence, our topic, "Buddhism and democracy" is possible only if we limit our consi-deration to the "democratic spirit" as far as it can be found in Buddha’s teachings and practices.

SOME PRELIMINARY REMARKS

            1. The Indians of Buddha’s time could know only two types of regime: absolute monarchy with one absolute king at the head of the state, and oligarchic monarchy with several kings at the head of the state, but close joint authority as absolute as in the first regime.

            Rajagrh is an example of an absolute monarchy, while Kapila-vatthu (Buddha’s original state) and Vesali are examples of the oli-garchic monarchy states.

            Buddha never showed a preference for one or the other of these political regimes, but gave guidelines to be followed by the people of both regimes.

            2. Buddha had no intention of teaching politics. He seems to have had no preference for any regime or form of government. Any form may be good if it is exercised in a democratic spirit, conforming to His religious teachings; it may also be bad if it counteracts His religious teachings which are required necessarily for religious persons. The only interest of His religious teaching is to lead His followers from a way of life of suffering to one of real happiness.

            3. Though Buddha never seemed to denounce the existing absolutism of His lifetime, He established the Sangha--the community of Buddhist monks--which could be considered model for later demo-cratic regimes. Though the word "democracy" was never men-tioned in the government of His monks, we can learn His democratic spirit through the process of governing and the regulations of the community which issued from that process.

HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC SPIRIT IN BUDDHISM

The Establishment of the Sangha

            The regulations of the Sangha are not a ready-made set prepared before its start, as St. Benedict or St. Francis of Assisi might have done for the Christian monastic orders.

            Buddha started His Sangha without any prior regulations. This is understandable, because as founder of His own religion He had no need to obtain approval from a superior. He was free to evolve his attitude regarding community life, which in the end would develop a democratic character. From the acceptance of the first member of His Sangha it is clear that He emphasized the importance of the quality of life through teaching and formation.

            After Buddha’s enlightenment, He directed His attention first of all to persuading the Pancavaggi (the Group of Five) to enter into His way of life. He preached to them His first sermon, known as Dhammacakkappa-vattanasutta, at their residence, the Isipatana Marigadayavana or Deer Garden, in Banares State. After the sermon only one of the five, Kondanna understood thoroughly the meaning of life and requested to be admitted as His follower. Buddha accepted him by saying "Come, O Bhikkhu, well-taught in doctrine, lead a holy life for the sake of the complete extinction of suffering."1 In this way Kondanna was admitted as the first Venerable Buddhist Monk. During the first rainy season, 60 monks were admitted by Buddha Himself into His monastic order or Sangha.

            During this earliest period, there were practically no regulations, for all the monks had good will and a firm intention to follow the life-style of Buddha Himself. All were under the direct inspiration of Bud-dha who presided like a loving Father over his beloved sons.

            One of the Prescriptions of Buddha, for example, runs as follows: "I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that only a learned, competent Bhikkhu who has completed ten years, or more than ten years, may confer the Upasampada Ordination."2 In such a way, more and more regulations were prescribed by Buddha, to be observed by all the Bukkhus of His Sangha.

            The democratic spirit during this period was one of equality among the monks who might come from any caste and status in society: princes, nobles, brahmins, vaisayas and outcasts. All became equal once they were ordained monks. They were differentiated, how-ever, according to their years of ordination: those later ordained had to be the first to pay respect to those earlier ordained because of the supposition that the earlier ones had more experience in the monastic life than did the later ones.

During the Experimental Period

            As more and more people requested to be admitted into the Sangha, the elder monks were delegated to perform the ceremony of admission and also to take the responsibility of training and supervising the novices. We do not know if Buddha delegated such powers to only one monk or to a set of monks for each community. Each delegation had to take responsibility for the community under its care in a spirit of paternal love and under the general control of Buddha Himself.

            It is not surprising that during this transitory period, with the rapidly increasing number of new monks to be admitted and trained, together with the new experiences each community of monks encoun-tered, decisions had to be made for uniformity of conduct among the monks. After consultation with the senior monks, Buddha declared one after another the regulations of the whole Sangha. It can be said that most of the actual Sangha regulations resulted from particular cases which occurred to the Sangha at different times. It is believed that Ananda, Buddha’s cousin and one of the senior monks or Theras, had a good memory so as to be able to remember all the regulations and the particular circumstance that gave rise to each of them. Only after Buddha’s death were the collection of regulations reported and the Theras helped Him analyze and rearrange them into a systematic collection, known later as the Vinaya Pitaka.

Final Development of Sangha

            After a certain period of experimentation with the Sangha Or-ganization through delegations under the direct control of Buddha Himself, Buddha saw that his Sangha had matured sufficiently to stand on its own feet. He let it go, being conscious that in time He would have to leave it behind--though surely it would have been better to see the result while He was living with them, so that, had any difficulty occurred, He would be able to suggest a wiser solution. He transferred His absolute authority over the Sangha to all the members of Sangha, so that they might all together decide how to apply the Sangha regulations to each particular case. These were the regulations all of them consented to accept in common as their Constitution on the day of their ordination into the Sangha.

            Buddha then convened the Bhikkhus and proclaimed to them this Announcement or natti:

Let the Sangha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N.N. desires to receive the Upasampada ordination from the venerable N.N. with the venerable N.N. as his Uppajjhaya. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha confer on N.N. the Upasampada ordination with N.N. as Upajjhaya. This is the natti (announcement). Let the Sangha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N.N. desires to receive the Upasampada ordination from the venerable N.N. The Sangha confers on N.N. the Upasampada ordination with N.N. as Upajjhaya. Let any one of the venerable brethren who is in favor of the Upasampada ordination of N.N. with N.N. as Uppajjhaya be silent, and any one who is not in favor of it, speak. And for the second time I thus speak to you: let the Sangha etc. . . . (as before). And for the third time I thus speak to you. let the Sangha, etc. . . . (as before). N.N. has received the Upasampada ordination from the Sangha with N.N. as Uppajjhaya. The Sangha is in favor of it, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand.3

            Surely this kind of democracy is a strict one, for any decision of the Sangha requires a unanimous vote. As to be silent at the moment of the vote means a vote in favor, such voting respects any kind of minority.

            Such a strict democracy can be practiced within the Sangha because we can presuppose that all and each one of the monks has been well formed and has a good intention for the common welfare of the Sangha. As such democracy is appropriate to the Sangha, it has progressed continually to today.

            It is to be noted that by this particular democracy, the Sangha members can vote only for the applications of regulations to particular cases. Buddha did not allow them to vote for the abolishment of the Sangha. As for the votes for change, Buddha allowed them only for minor regulations and still required a unanimous vote. During the Buddha’s lifetime, no such voting had ever been heard of. However, this allowance was like a time bomb within the Sangha, awaiting explosion at any time after Buddha’s death.

            The adjective "minor" is very imprecise when it qualifies the noun "precept". Any change of precept with the intention of "adaptation for the better" can be considered a "minor precept". Such inter-pretation happened many times after the death of Buddha, leading to the split of Buddhism into Hinayana and Mahayana, and to the split of each into a number of sects until today.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BUDDHIST DEMOCRACY

            1. Buddha’s words are the final appeal. Buddha did not delegate any person or any group of persons to approve the actions, nor to modify the regulations. At His death, the oral teaching of Buddha came to an end. No one had the right to add or to subtract a word of Buddha. What disciples can do is to interpret and clarify the Buddha’s words. Buddha’s words are like a constitution which came from Buddha alone. He might consult in order to obtain opinions, but He always gave the final decision, and no one could change it. Therefore the demo-cracy of the Buddhist Sangha is limited to the application of the regulations, and does not extend to making and modifying the regu-lations, except when a regulation is minor and the community unani-mously gives it consent by silent vote.

            This means that the Sangha government is absolutist in the formation of the Constitution, but democratic in its application. The Mahaparinibbana Suttanta expresses the vision and the reason of Buddha:

I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine in respect of the truths. Ananda, the Tathagata has no such thing as a closed-fist teacher who keeps some things back. Surely, Ananda, should there be any one who harbors the thought, ‘It is I who will lead the brotherhood’, or ‘The order is dependent upon me’, that is that he should lay down instructions in any matter concerning the order. Now the Tathagata, Ananda, thinks not that it is he who should lead the brotherhood, or that the order is dependent upon him.4

Therefore, O Ananda, be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge to yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Hold fast as a refuge to the truth. Look not for refuge to any one besides yourselves.5

It may be, Ananda, that in some of you the thought may arise, ‘The word of the master is ended, we have no teacher more.’ But it is not thus, Ananda, that you should regard it. The truths and the rules of the Order which I have set forth and laid down for you all, let them, after I am gone, be the Teacher to you.6

            It is to be noted that the Sangha Constitution or the Vinaya should be distinguished from the Universal and Eternal Dhamma which cannot be determined at will or modified by any convenience or inconvenience. Only the Vinaya can be modified according to their appropriateness to the circumstances. Nevertheless, even here He allowed for modifications with regard only to the minor Vinayas.

            2. All monks have equal rights regardless of family background or personal prestige. In the Indian context of Buddha’s time, caste discrimination was taken strongly into account. But Buddha’s Vinaya went against the current and this became the strong point of His Sangha Community. People of all castes found equal right of recog-nition in His Sangha and equal right to the perfect purification or Nibbana status. Read the following passage and imagine a triumphant tone of Buddha in pronouncing it:

            Just, O Bhikkhus, as the great rivers -

            that is to say, the Ganga, the Yamuna,

            the Aciravati, the Sarabhu, and the Mahi -

            when they have fallen into the great ocean,

            renounce their name and lineage and are

            thereceforth reckoned as the great ocean,

            Just so, O Bhikkus, do these four castes -

            the Khattiyas, the Brahmans, the Vessa, and

            the Suddas - when they have gone forth from

            the world under the doctrine and discipline proclaimed by

            the Tathagata, renounce their names and lineage, and

            enter into the number of the Sakyaputtiya Samanas.7

            Any monk who has been such for a lesser period is to venerate the older one. This means that an outcast monk is to be venerated by a monk from the Brahmin caste, if the former has a longer period of monkshood. Such a practice could not be imagined at that time outside the Buddhist community.

            3. A fraternal democracy is recommended. Buddha recommended six conditions for his monastic community. Buddha seems to have known how difficult this was, for in stating this He did not use the categorical imperative, but a persuasive form:

            So long as the brethren shall persevere in kindness of action, speech, and thought among the saints, both in public and private--so long as they shall divide without partiality, and share in common with the upright and the holy, all such things as they receive in accordance with just provisions of the order, down even to the mere contents of a begging bowl--so long as the brethren shall live among the saints in the practice, both in public and in private, of those virtues which are pro-ductive of freedom, and praised by the wise; which are untarnished by the desire of future life, or by the belief in the efficacy of outward acts; and which are conductive to high and holy thoughts--so long as the brethren shall live among the saints, cherishing, both in public and in private, that noble and saving faith which leads to the compete destruction of the sorrow of him who acts according to it. So long may the brethren be expected not to decline but to prosper--so long as these six conditions shall continue to exist among the brethren, so long as they are instructed in these six conditions, so long may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.8

            4. Unus inter pares (one among equals) democracy is an ideal of the Sangha. Buddha’s words: "Think not that it is he who should lead the brotherhood"9 show that, though the eldest in years of monkshood is venerated by all the other monks, he is not by any means the leader of the whole community in the administrative affairs. He is only one among equals. To conduct an administrative affair, any monk of any number of years of monkshood may be chosen by the community. He is still one among the equals and has to venerate those monks of his community who have been monks for a longer period.

CONCLUSION

            What is the best regime? This question was proposed to Jesus by the Pharisees: "Is it right to pay tax to Caesar?" which implies: Is the absolutism of Caesar the right regime? Neither founder, Buddha or Jesus, gave a direct answer, but proposed an ideal instead. "Dhamma will be your absolute leader", said Buddha; "Who is leader, let him serve", said Jesus. Dhammika regime as well as a service regime is not a form of government, but an attitude. Any regime that holds such an attitude, brings peace to the country and welfare to the people.

            Nowadays, democracy is held in high esteem; we rightly join in this but should not be enchanted by the mere word "democracy". A Thai proverb warns: "A word as a word is it much important?" Any word can be abused to cheat the people in unclear politics. Experience tell us that "Christian Democracy" is not always the best party; the same would be true of a Buddhist Democratic party if one were ever to exist. If now we prefer to use the word "democracy" for a way of governing the people, let it be practiced with the attitude and spirit of Dhamma and of loving service, as Buddha and Jesus recommended. Buddha’s Rajadhammakatha speaks thus:

            Kacchapinanca macchinam

            Kukkutinanca dhenunam

            Puttaposo yatha toti

            Tatha maccesu Rajunam

            As turtle and fish spare

            As hen and cow nurture

            Of their young ones care

            Of their human sheep so a pastor.

Philosophy Department

Assumption University

Thailand

NOTES

            1. F. Max Muller, ed. Sacred Books of The East (Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1968), vol. XIII, p. 97.

            2. Ibid., p. 178.

            3. F. Max Muller, ed. N. 43, pp. 169-170.

            4. Ibid., n. 42, pp. 36-37.

            5. Ibid., p. 38.

            6. Ibid., p. 112.

            7. Ibid., n. 61, p. 304.

            8. Ibid., n. 42, pp. 10-11.

            9. Max Muller, Vol. 42, p. 372.

DISCUSSION

            Civil society raises the issue of the need for authority in social life. In Confucian cultures authority is exercised by ritual, which in turn has some relation to heavenly authority. Buddhism too agrees upon the need for authority. In the Theravada tradition authority remains in the words and action of the Buddha. Mahayana Buddhism also locates this essentially in the teaching of the Buddha, but allows for greater adaptation to circumstances, provided this continues to aim at the perfection of life.

            Buddhism distinguished the monks from those living in the world. The life of the monks was subject to many precepts (217 for men and 358 for women). Those living in the world followed a lesser and varied number of precepts according to their advancement. They found guidance from the monks with regard to their spiritual welfare and in return were to support the minimum needs of the monks.

            With regard to the political order Buddhism does not propose any particular regime, but stays where it is welcome and moves on where it is not. For civil society, however, and the quality of its life Buddhism is a main proponent of tolerance. This is the basis of civil life and is the predominant note of the 10 principles Buddha prescribed for kings.