Not satisfied with the mere comfortable live in the palace, the bodhisatta (anarchistic being) left home in search of something more profound. He abandoned, not only the comfort of wordly life, but also submission to the structures of society. Despite numerous attempts by his father to get him to come back home, he never did.
Because of this uncompromising anarchistic approach to live, he did in fact end up finding complete freedom from the world, Nirvana.
The Buddha knew that he had a charismatic personality. He was not satisfied with the attainment of personal freedom. He knew that he could help others to reach the same goal. Out of that knowledge grew the Buddhist Sangha.
Towards the end of his life, the Buddha encountered a significant episode, that highlights his anarchistic approach in running of his renunciate ministry:
"With his secret desire to gain control over the community of Buddhists, Devadatta, one of Shakyamuni’s chief disciples, urged his aged teacher to relinquish his responsibility and spend the rest of his life in leisure. Devadatta made the proposal twice and was rejected. Devadatta then asked Shakyamuni a third time in a public assembly: “Lord, the Lord is now old, worn, stricken in years…It is I who will the lead the Order of monks”
Shakyamuni replied: “I…would not hand over the Order of monks even to Sariputta and Moggallana. How then could I to you, a wretched one to be vomited like spittle?”
(The Book of the Discipline: Vinaya-Pitaka Cullavagga, vol. 5, trans. I. B. Horner, p. 264)"
It's well known and accepted in the early Buddhist schools, that the Buddha never appointed a successor. He refused to give that position to anyone. Not even to one of his most brilliant disciples.
Therefore it becomes evident, that the Buddba established the Sangha by the principles of anarchy.
Of course there are many definitions for anarchism, but I don't think that the Buddha can be called an anarchist in the wide sense of the word. Maybe it is possible to see the Buddhas way of living as anarchist, but to say that he was an anarchist is a different thing. For example, in His teachings to lay people there isn't any anarchist implications present. Another thing is that the sangha was formed in the most hierarchical way based on the respect for the elders. Also, the Buddha was always emphasizing the fact that the respect for parents, teachers etc. was extremely important. He also taught many kings how to be a just ruler and there can not be found any material that would refer to a anarchist way of thought.
ReplyDelete"It's well known and accepted in the early Buddhist schools, that the Buddha never appointed a successor." This is true, but the Buddha left the Vinaya for the order to function as their theacher when he had passed away. Can it be said that the Sangha functions based on anarchy when it's existence is based on one of the most strict and hierarchial disciplines in the world?
I'm sure you agree with me, Lauri, that Buddhism in general has accumulated culturally biased customs after the passing away of the Buddha. For example, contemporary Buddhims in Thailand contains elements of folk believes and nationalism, that have nothing to do with the teaching of the Buddha.
DeleteHighlighting some of the similarities between anarchism and the early teachings of the Buddha, could perhaps help us to abandon the unwanted cultural customs.
The Indian tradition of the wandering ascetics, called the samanas of shramanas, share views with the anarchists. The samanas live apart from society. The Buddhist samana could be seen as kind of a perfect anarchist, having brought to life and fulfilled in his own behaviour the ideas of anarchism.
The best antidote against the cultural/corrupted asian buddhism is original buddhism. When buddhism is practiced in a way that it was in buddhas time, it becomes a religion that can be practiced everywhere & anytime. This naturally excludes political ideas which were formed thousand years after the Buddha in a specific conditions.
DeleteI want to stress that the anarchism is a political system of thought. "...in His teachings to lay people there isn't any anarchist implications present." So, if the Buddha had these certain political views, which you claim he had (but which is of course impossible since where talking about a buddha), why didn't He express them when preaching to, for example, lay people? Sure there are some anarchistic features in the Buddhas life but so there were epicurean, stoic, socratic, theosophical, christian, green thinking, conservatism.... But, He was the Buddha and taught the Dhamma, there's the difference.
"This naturally excludes political ideas which were formed thousand years after the Buddha in a specific conditions."
DeleteI would like to point out three things. Firstly, anarchism is not only a political ideology. Secondly, the social conditions of today aren't the same as the time of the Buddha. How do you know what the Buddha would have said today? Thirdly, anarchism wasn't formed thousansds of years after the Buddha..
"Firstly, anarchism is not only a political ideology. "
DeleteTrue, anarchism isn't only a political ideology and there isn't such a claim to be found from my comment.
"Secondly, the social conditions of today aren't the same as the time of the Buddha"
Yes, very much true. So why to connect the historical Buddha with todays social conditions and claim that He held views which are created in the context of the modern society?
"Thirdly, anarchism wasn't formed thousansds of years after the Buddha.."
Wasn't anarchism (as a system of thought) created in the 19th century or am I wrong?
"So why to connect the historical Buddha with todays social conditions and claim that He held views which are created in the context of the modern society?"
DeleteWhat we are trying to demonstrate here is, that there are similarities between the way the Buddha lived his life, taught his disciples and administered the Sangha (according to the Pali Canon), and anarchism. The Buddha governed and made decisions relying on the Dhamma, rather than personal opinion.
Is this anarchism? Some people have a very negative idea about anarchism. But that is partly why the term can serve a helpful function =)
"...to demonstrate here is, that there are similarities..."
DeleteYes, as you say, there are similarities. But it is totally different thing to claim that the Buddha was an anarchist. For example, in stoic philosophy there are similarities to the Buddhas way of living, but this does not mean that the stoic philosophers were buddhists or that the Buddha was stoic. It's an incorrect deduction.
I personally don't have very negative idea about anarchism. I just think that your arguments are incoherent and false.
"I personally don't have very negative idea about anarchism. I just think that your arguments are incoherent and false"
DeleteThis isn't what you told me earlier. You said you don't know much about anarchism and that you don't have a very positive idea about it. This is incoherent. You also attack other Buddhist by claiming they cannot converse in a harmonious manner. To me it's clear that you should take a look into the mirror to find out who's to be blamed =)
If you think that saying 'the Buddha was an anarchist' is incoherent, please provide references to sources and evidence.
I did not say that I have very negative idea about anarchism, but I also don't see it in the most positive light. Is it really "attacking" to express ones disappointment due to the fact that in many buddhists circles people tend to take things into personal level, when trying to discuss about functional problems among the buddhism or Buddhasasana?
DeleteAnd do you really see it as inharmonious act to present valid arguments against your views? Or is it bringing disharmony in the community to say that your arguments don't withstand against reasoning or valid deduct?
I don't have intention star war against anarchism, I'm just presenting that it isn't correct to claim that the Buddha was an anarchist. The reason I started arguing against this claim, was that I don't think that it is beneficial to buddhism to start adding political or different philosophical doctrines into it. And this in the context of the decline of buddhism in practice when ,for example, a certain culture starts modifying it too much.
For references to sources and evidence you can check my earlier answers.
I'm sorry if my critic against a certain way of thought have insulted you, it wasn't my intention. Maybe I will take a look into the mirror and stop criticizing political thoughts that differ from my own. (yes this is sarcasm)
Sarcasm or not, the vibe I got from your posts wasn't a positive one. Few times you mentioned having encountered nasty situations in the Buddhist world. Maybe little self-reflection wouldn't hurt here.
DeleteI'm not saying there's nothing wrong in the Buddhist world. There is. And I have my own reaction to those problems. This blog represents part of that reaction.
My posts wasn't meant to give you positive vibes, they were meant to give criticism to your thoughts. If you cant take it, maybe you shouldn't publish them.
DeleteIf you find something insulting material from my comments above, which are not meant to present rational option to your thesis, please feel free to demonstrate it so I can fix my attitude. This isn't sarcasm.
"My posts wasn't meant to give you positive vibes, they were meant to give criticism to your thoughts. If you cant take it, maybe you shouldn't publish them."
DeleteYou are welcome to express your self they way you want. This blog supports free speech. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to follow ideas like Buddhist Right Speech or not.
"If you find something insulting material from my comments above, which are not meant to present rational option to your thesis, please feel free to demonstrate it so I can fix my attitude. This isn't sarcasm."
Rather I will look into your earlier posts and try to see what your counter argumets are against "The Historical Buddha Was An Anarchist". I will answer you in due course.
I would like to point out something which also has something to do with the buddhism in bigger scale.
Delete"I'll leave it up to you whether you want to follow ideas like Buddhist Right Speech or not."
When I mention that there are problems in the way that buddhists discuss about their religion, this is the exact example of what I mean. People usually tend to get upset when someone disagrees with them. This is very natural and gives an opportunity to discuss about different opinions in a deeper level. The problem comes up when, and this seems to be the case quite often, the another person starts accusing the other saying that he/she isn't acting according to buddhist principles or starts to criticize him/her as a practitioner, instead of focusing in the topic.
What happens then, is that the another party is kind of driven in a dead end. What can one say anymore to defend oneself when it can again and again be interpret as just causing more schism or acting in a unwholesome way. This stops the discussion and causes another person to feel unable to defend him-/herself. In a way it is the same thing if we would be christians and the other party would say that your not a true believer, or this isn't the way that a true believer acts.
So, I have presented critic against your thesis. There are many arguments which you have left without response and later you have accused that I act in a inharmonious way and that I should practice self reflection. Then I ask you to show some facts about this claim and you refuse to do this and at the same time hint that my comments aren't in accord to the Right Speech.
Do you really think that this is a progressive or fair way to act in this kind of situation?
In your comments you have also said that I have "attacked" other buddhists before, when I have been talking about this same phenomenon in different places. So I really do expect you to point out where in my comments I have acted against the Right Speech, and if this isn't possible, I expect you to take back these accusations.
"For example, in His teachings to lay people there isn't any anarchist implications present"
DeleteI pointed out in my blog post "Threat From Kings", that the Buddha adviced the laity to be watchful...
"...such he husbands well by guarding and watching so that kings would not seize it, thieves would not steal it, fire would not burn it, water would not carry it away, nor ill-disposed heirs remove it" (AN 8.54)
Another example is the Kalama sutta(AN 3.65), which you can observe in the sideline of this blog.
Well-known monk from Thailand, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, talks about Dhammic Socialism:
(http://www.suanmokkh.org/ds/what_ds1.htm).
In my blog post titled "Red Bureaucracy" I translated Noam Chomsky's words:
"anarchism has a broad back,” and “endures anything.” One major element has been what has traditionally been called 'libertarian socialism'."
Countless contemporary monks, both Western and Thai, have a high regard for Buddhadasa. Ajahn Chah had a high regard for Buddhadasa. In fact, he his one of the most respected and influential monks who ever lived in Thailand. And he talked about Socialism.
"Also, the Buddha was always emphasizing the fact that the respect for parents, teachers etc. was extremely important."
DeleteI don't see how this goes against anarchistic way of thought. Respect for parents and elders doesn't exclude freedom to make your own decisions. In fact, if your spiritual teacher is misleading you, then you have a duty to disobey that teacher.
There's the case of the quarreling monks of Kosambi(MN48). Because of the quarrel, the Buddha disappeared alone into the Paileyyaka Forest. Then the laity stopped offering alms to the monks.
"Can it be said that the Sangha functions based on anarchy when it's existence is based on one of the most strict and hierarchial disciplines in the world?"
Entering into the ordained Theravada Sangha is voluntary. Nobody is forced to become a Buddhist monk or a nun. Thus, it's a free choice. A monk or a nun can leave the saffron robe at anytime he or she wants.
If there's a vote in the Sangha, every single ordained monk gets equally one vote. The senior monk doesn't get two or three votes and the junior only half, or something like that.
To my mind, saying that the Sangha is hierarchical can be misleading. It's true that this is traditionally been part of some cultures where the Sangha has been abiding. The fact that the ordained Theravada Sangha is structured in such a way, that the junior monks sits behind senior monk, has only a pragmatic function.
The ecclesiastical hierarchies of monks in Thailand, the Sangharajas, the exalted position of the Abboth in the monastery etc. All of this is of course superimposed on to the Sangha. It has nothing to do with early Buddhims.
"but the Buddha left the Vinaya for the order to function as their teacher when he had passed away."
Again, I don't see how this is contrary to anarchims. It can become contrary, if Vinaya is used unskillfully. Unfortunately (as pointed out by Bhante Dhammika, The Broken Buddha), the Vinaya is often not practiced skillfully. To my understanding, mindless usage of the Vinaya goes against both, how the Buddha meant it to be used, and also what anarchism is supposed to be.
Thank you for answering to my critic and sharing your different views about them. I still don't think that in a long term it will bring much benefit to buddhism to connect it with another philosophical/political ways of thoughts because it limits this religions potential to reach different people. This of course in a wider scale and I accept your arguments presented in your two last posts. But maybe it is too ideal to think that the buddhism could be practiced exactly in the same way as it was in the Buddhas time because we won't probably meet those same conditions anymore.
DeleteAs my understanding goes, I agree very much that Gautama was an anarchist, and didn't want to be any authority himself either. He can give ideas and be an inspiration, but just obeying all the buddhist 'rules' will still not take you to Nirvana, if your mind is just about obeying the rules instead of questining them, and finding the trueth.
ReplyDeleteThe respect for ones parents, teachers or just each other is not away from anarchism, it's just good thing to do. But respect is different than obedience.
Once freedom ends where others begin.