These elements of Buddhism clearly place it in conflict with the type of nationalistic appeals heard in the 1930s calling for total subordination of the needs of the individual to those of the Japanese state. For many Buddhists, that period is a cruel reminder of the fact that "societies cease to be truly human when they cease to acknowledge that each individual's fulfillment is the purpose of the whole." 12 Today, the calls for a return to the spirit of Yamamoto blaring from the sound trucks of the political right on the streets of Japan are further reminders to Buddhists of the importance of protecting those traditional and new socio-political constructs that elevate "reason over authority and individual freedom over hierarchy." 13

 

IV. BUDDHISM AND THE STATE According to the Agganna Sutta, prior to the period of devolution in which we now exist, there was a period of general tranquility, happiness, and prosperity. 14 However, primarily as a result of a transformation of common property into private property, there arose lying, stealing, and other "immoral" acts. In response, the people elected a King. The authority of the King was limited and focused on the task of maintaining law and order.

 

While the King was not viewed as a religious leader or as a vehicle for the propagation of Buddhism, his actions did have religious overtones. The King was expected to carry out his primary task in a way that would not impinge on the conditions necessary for individual religious enlightenment. Additionally, the King was expected to exemplify the ethical principles of Buddhism in his personal behavior. Accordingly, the good King was one who divided his time between administration and self-enlightenment. The King's neglect of his own self-enlightenment was seen as the cause, in turn, of the King's unjustified quest for additional power, an increase in political violence, and severe deterioration in the conditions necessary for spiritual advancement for one and all.

 

This view of the flow of moral corruption as proceeding from the top to the bottom of the socio-political hierarchy is common in Buddhism. Here its significance is threefold. First, it reflects a healthy aversion to high concentrations of power in all socio-political structures. Second, it provides a basis for a change in leadership at the top to deal with persistent social problems. Third, it directly links the prospects of self-enlightenment with the nature of the existing political order. Together these attitudes naturally led Buddhists to take the activities of the state very seriously.

 

The enlightened ruler need not fear being deposed if he cultivates the traits of integrity, self-control, forbearance, generosity, gentleness, selflessness, nonobstinacy, and nonviolence. 15 The last two traits deserve special note. In Buddhism nonobstinacy refers to more than flexibility; it also means that the King will listen carefully to the wishes of the people. Just as this is to be a government by the people, it is also to be a government for the people. It is less clear that it necessarily must be a government of the people. Yet, it is hard to see how it could in practice be otherwise and still fulfill the requirements of promoting the conditions necessary for self-enlightenment in keeping with the wishes of the people. Thus, while Buddhism is explicitly supportive of only two of the three components of contemporary democratic theory, it is compatible with all three.

 

The notion of a ruler committed to nonviolence may seem a little idealistic to many of us. Yet, it is not in Buddhism because the enlightened King will reject the duality of the people and the state. He will recognize that the welfare of the state lies in the welfare of the people and that the will of the people is the will of the state. In so doing, the state will be faced with few cases in which force will be necessary to gain public compliance with its edicts, and the people will find it unnecessary to resist a repressive state with force. Theoretically, such a highly unified nation-state would also not be a likely target of violence from without. Thus, it is not unrealistic for a Buddhist to proclaim that "the goals of the state are peace, happiness, and respect for life, and power [physical force] is inherently incompatible with these objectives." 16

 

The above is intimately tied to the presumption on the part of Buddhism of the inherent rationality of man. Buddhism, therefore, holds that there is no dispute that cannot be settled in a peaceful and amenable way through appeals to reason; "any other approach will result, not in the resolution of problems, but in the brutalization of humanity." 17 This perspective commits Buddhism to the creation of fair and reasonable conflict resolution mechanisms, including a widely accepted legal code and judicial procedure. The use of the judicial system in civil matters is, of course, not to be substituted for person-to-person negotiations except when absolutely necessary.

 

The resulting legal-penal system, like the state itself, is to be nonviolent in nature. Buddhism rejects not only the death penalty, but also the repressive forms of punishment and internment that still characterize many modern states, including many democracies. It calls for a legal-penal system guided not by the quest for revenge, but by the desire to rehabilitate the offender. Given the Buddha nature that supposedly lies within us all, the possibility of rehabilitating even those that appear incorrigible is considered to always exist. In fact, incorrigibility is often seen by Buddhists as the result of persistent mistreatment of the offender by the legal-penal system. "Nothing [from the Buddhist perspective] can produce more pernicious effects on criminals than to treat them as if they were a different sort of people and confirm them in their conviction that they are bad-natured." 18