Buddhism and Asian Politics

Abstract

In any part of the world, the relation of religion to politics defies simple interpretation. This is certainly true in the case of Buddhism and its role in regard to various Asian governments. Buddhism, like other world religions, is concerned with the perennial problems of human existence. It is inclined to view its relation to the socioeconomic and political realms from the soteriological standpoint. In principle, the goal set forth by Buddhism has always been, and always will be, the attainment of Nirvana or Nibbana, however these terms are understood. Buddhism has been aware of the necessity and desirability of peace, order, and harmony in this world, as evidenced by the scattered references regarding Gautama Buddha's attitude toward monarchs and principalities. In general, Buddhism accepted certain Indian concepts such as those of elective kingship and conventional law while some Buddhist statesmen were marked by their high moral attitudes and qualities. But Buddhism as such has never articulated what might be termed a Buddhist social or political philosophy. It could also be pointed out that, contrary to the popular notion that Gautama was a social reformer, fighting for the cause of the common man against the evils of the caste ridden society of his time, there is no evidence that he attempted, directly at any rate, to change the social order. To him, the transformation of society would come only as a by-product of the religious transformation of individuals who constitute the social group. From its inception, the Buddhist movement developed a fellowship of monastics and laity that aspired to follow the path of the Buddha. The central core of the Buddhist fellowship was the monastic order, which soon formulated minute regulations to guide religious life in the cloister. The rapid growth of monasticism, however, resulted in a sharp distinction between the spiritual and secular domains of life. In this dualistic view of society, the Vinaya, or the code of monastic discipline, was considered normative for the religious sphere, while the Arthasastra, the traditional Indian science of politics, was regarded as appropriate for socio-political affairs. Meanwhile, pious legends began to portray Gautama, who was probably the son of a minor tribal chief in Northern India, as a mighty prince who forsook luxury, wealth. and the power of his principality in order to establish a spiritual kingdom on earth. Such a deification of a religious leader, so common in the history of religions, made Gautama a universal spiritual ruler (Cakravartin), whose law (the Dharma) underlies, inspires and maintains both the Vinaya and Arthasastra.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.