|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 21 July 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
A Buddhist theory of International Law and International Politics (An Evaluation of a treatise by the late Professor K. N. Jayatilleke) by Dr. H. S. S. Nissanka
n 1967 at the Hague Academy of International Law, the late Prof. K. N. Jayathilleke delivered five lectures entitled "The Principles of International Law in Buddhist Doctrine". What the writer proposes to do here is not to subject this treatise by Prof. Jayathilleke to a critical analysis but to find out what he precisely meant by "A Buddhist Theory of International Law and International Politics". These Hague lectures were published in "Recueil des Course" Vol. II, 1967. . "In the strict sense of the world, there is no Buddhist law; there is only an influence exercised by Buddhist ethics or changes that have taken place in customs. No Buddhist authority......has ever created or promulgated any law". Professor Jayathilleke began his first lecture with a reference to this quotation from Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, S. V. Law (Buddhist) and stated, "I would maintain in the contrary that the monastic code consisted of laws in so far as it consisted of enforceable rules of conduct, precisely stated and codified, there being a set procedures laid down in the constitution for trial and conviction in case of infringement." International Law Prof. Jayathilleke built his argument in his usual scholarly fashion and brought to light so many primary and secondary source materials relevant to the task in hand. In order to understand his treastise, at this point it is necessary for us to consider precisely what we do mean by the term "international Law." 'International Law' is a name given to a body of rules and traditions that has grown since the 16th century in the Western Europe. An authority on International Law, L. Oppenheim makes the following observation. "International Law, in the meaning of the term as used in modern times, did not exist during the antiquity or the first part of the Middle Ages. It is in its origin essentially a product of Christian Civilisation and began gradually to grow from the second half of the Middle Ages." The above quotation supports the view that modern International Law grew in the Christian Civilisation, nurtured by Christian ethics. The term "International Law" was first coined by Jeremy Bentham in 1780. According to the generally accepted definitions of International Law by the jurists of the West, it is a body of rules which determine the conducts of civilised States in their mutual dealings. At a certain period of history, it was a common belief in the West that the States in the east were uncivilised. Therefore some westerners seemed to have believed that there was nothing in the East which could have been called "International Law". External affairs guided by certain Buddhist principles There was a number of sovereign States in Asia which had diplomatic relations with each other and their external affairs were guided by certain rules based on certain Buddhist principles suited for all times and climes. On evidence such as those of the Asoka edicts, Prof. Jayathilleke based his argument that Asiatic States had diplomatic relations not only with sovereign States in Asia but also with those in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. The Emperor Asoka had diplomatic relations with the five Greek kings and with the rules of Chola, Sri Lanka and Pandyan kingdoms. (p.556) Prof. Jayathilleke refers to an ambassador from Lanka to Rome of whom Pliny States that he was in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Claudius. The earliest historically recorded mission from Sri Lanka to China was in the year 395 AD during the time of Emperor Hsiao-wu, Prof. Jayathilleke further refers to a triple alliance entered into by Lanka, Malaysia and the Pandya Kingdom against the Chola aggression during the 11th century. By means of such historical evidence Prof. Jayathilleke tried to prove that in this part of the world the sovereign States did have their diplomatic, trade and cultural relations with all the countries of the world known to them and that they had commonly accepted rules and customs to govern their external relations. If one were to say, in the face of all this, that the States in Asia especially the Buddhist States did not have an accepted code of rules of the conduct of their external relations, such a statement would amount to a display of one's ignorance of the history of Asian activities. It is true that there was no codified international law of the type that grew in the west especially after Hugo Grotius (the acknowledged father of modern International Law who authored the first treatise of International Law entitled "De Jure Belli ac Pacis". "The Law of Peace and War" published in 1625). Even if such a codified international law was not available in the east, the fact remains, as Prof. Jayathilleke points out that there is enough evidence to establish the fact of Asian Buddhist States having had Buddhism as a guide in conducting the external relations of their States. Prof. Jayathilleke maintains that the Buddhist doctrines relevant to the conduct of external affairs were quite different from the doctrines of Kautilya and other forms of Machiavellian philosophies. (p. 471). Kautilyan and Machiavellian political philosophies Referring to the Kautilyan and Machiavellian political philosophies, Prof. Jayatillake makes the following remark: "It is evident in this work that all respect for moral values was subservient to the ends of power and expediency. The quest for power as an end in itself and the employment of any means whatsoever to gain these ends were against the principles of Buddhist ethics. At the same time the political philosophy of Buddhism develops partly out of a criticism of the Machiavellian political realism of the doctrine of the Arthasastras." p.471. The political wisdom of the Arthasastras The Buddhist texts have accepted much of the political wisdom of the Arthasastras including the need for efficient administration and vigilance on the part of the king or the State in regard to both home and foreign policies. As to the question of power, there is an essential deference according to Arthasastra, the moral values are subservient to power and according to the Buddhist texts, power is ultimately subservient to the rule of righteousness. (p.472). In order to substantiate this point Prof. Jayathilleke quotes a line from Mahavastu (A Mahayana Buddhist text): "Bala cakram hi nisraya One of the greatest rulers of the world, Asoka at the beginning of his reign followed the Arthasastra and this led him to carry on an aggressive foreign policy (dig-vijaya). He charged this policy to one of "Dharma-Vijaya" (conquest by righteousness). Prof. Jayathilleke has given a number of instances where the rulers in the Buddhist texts were admonished to give up their aggressive policies and to cultivate friendship and co-operation in the sphere of foreign affairs. (p.473). It is generally accepted point that any State makes use of international law and international politics to achieve ends beneficial to itself. Although Prof. Jayathilleke did not, in detail, differentiate between the home policy and a foreign policy of a State, he did not fail to show that both home and foreign policies of a State should be based on the Dharma. We cannot expect a State to follow foreign policy based on Dharma while following a home policy devoid of it. The most important unit In International politics a State is the most important unit. Therefore according to the Buddhist political philosophy, a State should possess the following features: i. A government elected by the people - the ruler should be the servant of the people (Gana dasa ) p.512). The people have a right to overthrow a corrupt regime by non-violent means. (p.528). ii. A legal system which is capable of meeting out justice and equity (p.488) which upholds the equality of man (pp.515-517). (Prof. Jayathilleke has referred to the seven arguments advanced by the Buddha to establish the truth of the equality of man). iii. A constitution based on righteousness where fundamental human rights are protected (p.558). iv. A plan (programme) to implement the following (a) An insurance system which will protect persons and property (b) Elimination of crimes. (c) Just distribution of the wealth of the country and full employment (d) A mechanism to formulate the right policies. (pp.540-541). v. A foreign policy based on the following principles: (a) Promotion of friendship. (b) Non-aggression and co-operation. (c) Promotion of the welfare of the entire human community. (p.557). vi. Administrators who possess the following qualities: (a) Selflessness (parichhaga (b) Rectitude (Ajjava (c) Mercy (Akkhoda) (d) Political wisdom (Pragnabala) (p.530). Three ways of implementing the Buddhist theory A Buddhist theory of international politics will be meaningful only if there are states implementing the ideas given above. There are three ways of implementing the Buddhist theory of international politics. They are as follows: 1. Existence of states which have the six features mantioned earlier. 2. emergence of a world ruler (chakkavatthi raja) who, having Established a just state and following a foreign policy of Dhamma-vijaya brings the whole world under his rule and rules according to the Ten Rules of Righteousness (Dasaraja-Dhamma) (p.538). 3. The establishment of a kingless world government (arajakacakka) which functions according to a constitution based on the dhamma. (p.539). The writer feels that it would have been very useful if Prof. Jayathilleke compared the concept of "arajaka-cakka" with the system of the United Nations Organization. The UNO is in a sense, a world government without a raja or a ruler. Like the third form of Universal state (Chkkavatthi rajya) the UNO is based on its charter (constitution). It is this document which is the life force of the UN. The charter of the UN has two primary objectives (see the Preamble to the UN Charter). To be continued ************************** Mindfulness and awareness by Kingsley Heendeniya The Pali word for awareness is sampajanna. It is frequently linked with mindfulness or sati in the compound word sati-sampajanna. In the Satipatthana Sutta, the section on mindfulness of the body includes awareness of bodily actions from which we conclude that there is a subtle difference between mindfulness and awareness. Mindfulness is general recollected-ness or not being scattered-brained or discursive. Awareness is more specialized. Here, one keeps oneself under constant observation, not letting thoughts, feelings, actions pass without notice and recognized as such. Scope To begin with, below are three Sutta passages to indicate the scope of the practice of awareness in Dhamma. (a)Here, monks, in walking to and fro, a monk practices awareness. In looking ahead and looking aside he practices awareness (b)Here, monks, feelings are known as they arise, feelings are known as they endure, feelings are known as they vanish; perceptions are knownthoughts are known as they vanish... (c)Here, Ananda, a monk is mindful as he walks to, he is mindful as he walks fro, he is mindful as he stands, he is mindful as he sits, he is mindful as he sets to work. This, Ananda, is a mode of recollection that, when developed and made much in this way, leads to mindfulness-and-awareness. [Abbreviated]. Habit It is now necessary to sort out a verbal confusion. Habitual actions are actions done without thinking. They are automatic, such as blinking the eyes, breathing. It is a misunderstanding to regard them as unconscious action. In Dhamma, action is defined as cetana or intention. The so-called unconscious action is no action at all. It is simple movement like a stone rolling down a hill when dislodged, a tree swaying in the wind. In Dhamma, all consciousness is action of mind, speech or body, and every action is conscious. The Freudian & Jungian concepts of unconsciousness and sub-consciousness are not found in Dhamma. A conscious action is a normal deliberate action, an action requiring some thought to perform. When we do them, we have to consider what we are doing such as taking what is not given, seducing your neighbour's wife. It is this considering what we are doing that constitutes awareness. Please note this point. People sometimes object that it is not possible to both act and be aware of action, at one and the same time. This is pure prejudice. I am now typing this letter and breathing and I do not interrupt one to do the other. What is not possible is to give equal attention to them at the same time. When walking, for example, I can ask myself: What am I doing? It is not necessary to stop walking or run or fall down to answer: I am walking. So long as we are awake, there is always some degree of awareness and we are obliged to consider what we are doing or thinking in order to deal with them efficiently. Awareness is in abeyance when we dream. We are not aware that we are dreaming. A nightmare is a struggle to wake up, a trying to remember or become aware that we are dreaming. In our normal life, most of the time, we are absorbed in what we are doing or feeling. We are immersed in say, affection, hate, aversions, boredom. It is difficult to be detached when there is so much routine work to do and be done with. It robs us of personal relationships and emotional satisfaction. So, we like to keep awareness of what we are doing to a minimum. But we cannot avoid it altogether. We use awareness to overcome obstacles in our day-to-day life, to get through routine work or perform tasks expeditiously. Practice in Dhamma The practice of awareness in the teaching of the Buddha has a different purpose. It is taught to get release from living, leading to liberation from dukkha. These two purposes overcoming mundane problems and getting release from everything are at right angles to each other. There is competition between them. The Buddha says, in the Itivuttaka, that three things harm the progress of a normal sekha [bhikkhu under higher training who has attained the Path]: fondness for work such as sewing robes, fondness for talk, and fondness for sleep. In the first two, there is much awareness and in the third, no awareness is possible. A bhikkhu cannot avoid working and talking but he is required to do them mindfully and with awareness. Drive and initiative in one seeking release are not recommended. They are impediments to progress. While the ordinary uninstructed may not habitually practice satisampajanna, a bhikkhu is instructed by the Buddha to live in that mode always, noting even the time to get up when going to sleep. It is imperative for a disciple of the Buddha to train to live in the mindfulness-and-awareness mode. How to practise? How does a person practise normal satisampajanna for release? All that is necessary is a slight change of attitude, a slight effort of attention. Instead of being fully absorbed in what we are doing, without ceasing to act, we observe ourselves in action. We ask: What am I doing? Since all action is done consciously, we already know the answer. I now know that I am typing this article on my computer, scratching my arm, adjusting in the seat etc. We can do this endlessly every time we are doing something or thinking. If I now want to train to be always in the mindfulness-and-awareness mode, I must go on asking myself this question until, with practice, normal I am answering the question without having to ask it. The satisampajanna practice is now automatic. When this stage is reached aware when reaching for the cup, pouring, stirring sugar in the tea; opening the toilet door, sitting down, defecating; having lustful thoughts etc - awareness is successful and all one has to do is not let it slip through neglect or forgetfulness; it should be cultivated and developed in the case of all physical and verbal actions, feelings, perceptions and thinking. Why practice? What is the point of it? Of what use is it to be in the satisampajanna mode? There are three good reasons why everyone should practice it. It develops normal sila [virtue], samadhi [concentration] and panna [wisdom]. In the first place, it leads to self-criticism and self-correction. Next, you will develop a powerful control over passions. With constant practice they shall arise less frequently and you shall be trained to abandon them when arisen. In the third place, mindfulness-and-awareness is an absolute requirement for understanding the essence of the Dhamma. The reason is this: the Buddha is not concerned with any particular or single experience - feelings, perceptions etc as such. The Dhamma is about ALL experience, about the general underlying nature of ALL experience. We do not need a Buddha to tell us how to escape or cope with a particular pain, feeling or misfortune or with cancer. We need the Buddha to tell us how to escape and get release from ALL pain, feelings, misfortune: dukkha. When we have trained ourselves to be always in the satisampajanna mode, we become aware of what we are doing, feeling, perceiving, thinking; and we are also observing and watching them reflexively with detachment. That is, we are aware normal twice - the immediate experience and the same again in the reflexive mode. Then, the general underlying nature of the experience comes to the fore. The immediate, particular activity or feeling or perception or thought is now regarded as a mere sample of the general. We can thus see the general nature or the essence of things, of things that are dependent on other things. With guidance of the Buddha, we shall be able to see style anicca, dukkha, anatta: of things the Buddha speaks about. The Dhamma is then truly understood as being about the Nature of Things. [This article is composed from a letter Venerable Nanavira Thera wrote to Mr. N. Q. Dias in 1962 L 2, Vol.II,Letters, BCC, Nedimale, Dehiwela, 2002. Mr. Dias was a senior civil servant and former High Commissioner]. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
