TheConceptofPeace

astheCentralNotionofBuddhistSocialPhilosophy

byO.H.deA.Wijesekera

EmeritusProfessorofSanskrit

BodhiLeavesNo:78Copyright © Kandy; Buddhist Publication Society,1978BPSOnlineEdition©(2008)Digital Transcription Source: Buddhist PublicationSociety

For free distribution. Thisworkmay be republished,reformatted, reprinted and redistributed in anymedium. However, any such republication andredistributionistobemadeavailabletothepublicon

2

a free and unrestricted basis and translations andother derivative works are to be clearly marked assuch.

3

I

TheConceptofPeace

astheCentralNotionofBuddhistSocialPhilosophy

thasbeenacharacteristicofBuddhiststudiesin thepast that the socio-moral aspect of itsphilosophyhasreceivedscantattentionatthehands ofwriters both of the East andWest.

This deficiency can be regarded as being due toseveralreasons,butonefactstandsoutclearly.IntheEast,studentsofthesubjecthaveregardedBuddhismpurely as a personal religion, and have dealtwith itonly from the point of view of individual ethics andpractice,whilethescholarsoftheWestappeartohaveengaged themselves chiefly in the historical andmetaphysical treatment of Buddhist ideas. Thus, thesocio-ethicalaspectofBuddhistphilosophyhashardlyreceived the attention it deserves. Nevertheless, acareful student of Buddhism in any of its forms,whether Hinayana or Mahayana, will not fail to beimpressed by the wealth of data afforded by thesetexts regarding the socio-moral problems current atthe timeof theircomposition. Inapreviousstudy [1]

4

the present writer has emphasized the socio-ethicalaspectofBuddhismasrecordedinthePaliCanon,andattemptedabrieftreatmentofthesocial,political,andjuristic principles contained in some of the earliestbooks.Itmaybementionedinthisconnectionthat,inregard to socio-philosophical doctrines, very littledifferenceisfoundbetweenthePaliandothersources,such as the Buddhist Sanskrit literature. The socialethicsofBuddhismarecommontoallschools,andtheminordifferencesthatmaybefoundareoftenduetovariationsofemphases.

ItisnecessarytopointoutattheveryoutsetthattheBuddha did not concern himself directly with socio-philosophical matters, but referred to them only asadjuncts to the concept of dukkha (or the generalunsatisfactoriness of empirical existence) and therelease(nissaraṇa) from it.TheBuddhawasaverse tophilosophizing or theorizing for its own sake, andconsequently a social philosophy can be found inBuddhism only as inferable from its practical socio-moral postulates. Hence, in Buddhism the moreimportant aspect of its social philosophy relatesmainly to the sphere of ethics, particularly ofpsychological ethics. Reason and belief (faith) areinadequateinthemselvestobringmantothesummumbonum, for it was the conviction of the Buddha thatone had to establish oneself in moral conduct (sīla)

5

beforeembarkinguponanykindofspiritualprogress,orevenofprogressinworldlyaffairs.Inthisattempt,althoughman’sprimaryconcerniswithhisowninnerpurification,theethicalnatureofthestruggleinvolveshimintheproblemofhisrelationshiptoothers,thatistosay,hisfellow-beingsbothhumanandnon-human(the relationship of man to other sentient beingsreceivingconsiderableemphasisinBuddhism).Intheactual practice of social morality, however, it isprimarily the individual’s contact with the humancommunity or society that becomes ethicallyimportant, and, therefore, it is such humanrelationshipsthatconstitutethemainproblemfortheBuddhist just as for every other system of socialphilosophy.

AstudyofearlyBuddhistliteraturerevealsthefactthattheconceptofpeaceappearsasthepivotalpointin the Buddhist system of social ethics. As generallyunderstood in theWest, thenotionofpeace refers toabsence of strife among groups, whether they areregardedasclasses,communities,races,ornations. ItisnotcustomaryintheidiomoftheWesttospeakofpeaceasbetween individualswithin thesamegroup.InBuddhismandotherIndianreligions,however,theprimaryemphasisisontheindividualaspectofpeace,and its social consequences are held to follow onlyfrom the centre of the individual’s own psychology.

6

Themostprominentwordforpeace,santi (Skr. I), [2]denotes essentially the absence of conflict in theindividual’smind,andinthefundamentalsensereferstotheabsolutestateofmentalquietudeexpressedbythetermnirvana(Palinibbāna).InthePaliCanonitischaracterizedasthe“havenofpeace”(santipadaṃ).[3]One of the oldest texts, the Sutta Nipāta, refers tointernal peace (ajjhatta-santi) as resulting from theelimination of ideological and other conflicts of themind(v.837).

FromthepointofviewoftheBuddha’steaching,itis clear that thepeace of the communitydepends onthe peacefulness or good will of the individualmembersofthecommunity,andthesameholdsgoodeven if we enlarge the community to include thewhole world. For Buddhism regards peace as asubjective quality, having an individual centre andmanifestation.ItisbecauseofthisfactthattheBuddhaemphasized the subjective aspect of his social ethicmore than themere externals of social behaviour. Asocio-moral act, according to Buddhism, gains thegreaterpartofitspracticalvalidityfromthepurityofits source, which is no other than the psychology ofthe individual responsible for its conception andexecution. In the Sutta-Nipāta (v.260), it is admittedthat satisfactory external (i.e. environmental)conditions are necessary for a healthy and peaceful

7

social life, but the Buddha always insisted that thefactors conditioningman’s social life are in a deepersense psychological. Consequently, according toBuddhism, the social sense or sensus communis alongwithitsethicisinoriginpersonalandindividual,anditisonlyinitsapplicationthatitassumesareciprocalcharacter.Intheultimateanalysis,therefore,peaceisapsychological condition or attitude, a function ofindividual thought and feeling. Thus peace in thegeneral social sense is only the end result of thecultivation of peacefulness by the individual,who istheultimateunitofthesocialcommunity.

This psychological attitude tending to peace insociety is further analysed in Buddhism into fourcardinal states of thought and feeling called the foursublimemoods (brahmavihāra). These four appear thesameinallschoolsofBuddhism.InPalitheyarelistedas mettā, karuṇā, mudita and upekkhā, while theBuddhistSanskritsourcesgivetheequivalentformsasmaitri, karuṇā,mudita and upekṣa. Etymologically andconceptually they are the same, and mean friendlyfeeling, sympathy, congratulatory benevolence, andequanimity, respectively. All social relationships,according to the Buddha, have to be based on thesefourmoodsorattitudes,andthustheyareregardedasrepresentingthehighest(brahma)conditionsforsocialwell-being. In fact, itmayberightlyassertedthat the

8

concept of the brahmavihāras sums up thewhole ofBuddhistsocialphilosophyandgives it inanutshell.Psychologicallyconsidered,thesefoursublimemoods(or moral attitudes of the individual towards hisfellow-creatures) are only partial aspects of a singlebasic orientationof the individualmindwith respecttohumanityandnon-humansentientbeings,andcancorrectly be subsumed under the generic termbenevolence.[4]Thisspiritofbenevolenceistheoriginand source of all peace and goodwill among men,accordingtoBuddhistsocialphilosophy.

Thefirstofthesesublimeattitudesisgivenasmettā(Skr. maitri) which indicates the exercise offriendliness towards one’s fellow beings in allsituations.Itisapositivestateofmind,beingdefinedas“thedesire tobringabout thehappinessandwell-beingofothersinsociety.”Infact,suchfriendlinessoruniversalloveisregardedinBuddhismasthebasisofall social ethics, the cornerstone of the edifice ofBuddhistbenevolenceorgoodwillamongmenwhichis the sine qua non of peace. The importance of thisaltruistic virtue for Buddhist ethics can be seen fromthefactthat,accordingtotheTheravadatradition,thenextBuddhatoappearintheworldwillbeknownasMetteyya or the “Buddha of Universal Love,” whileMahayanaliteraturehasMaitreyaasoneofthefutureBodhisattvas.Peaceandgoodwillamongmencannot

9

be achieved, according to Buddhism, without thisbasic attitude of friendly feeling which must beexercised irrespective of race or colour, religion orpolitical creed, or even in spite of the fact that theother is one’s enemy. Once the Buddha admonishedhisdisciplesthus:“Ifvillainousbanditsweretocarveyou limb from limb with a two-handled saw, eventhentheonethatshouldgivewaytoangerwouldnotbeobeyingmyteaching.Eventhenbe ityour task topreserve your hearts unmoved, never to allow an illword to pass your lips, but always to abide infriendlinessandgoodwill,withnohateinyourhearts,enfoldinginradiantthoughtsoflovethebandit[whotortures you], and,making that the basis, to envelopthe entire world in your radiant thoughts of love,noble, vast andbeyondmeasure, inwhich therewillbenohatredorthoughtofharm.”[5]ThereareotherplacestoointhePaliCanonwheretheexerciseofthisattitudeofloveandfriendlinessisrecommendedevenwhen one is placed under the most tryingcircumstances. [6]Modernwriters generally translatethewordmettāas“love,”butithasbeenpointedoutthat“love”hasspecificChristianassociationsandmaynot be suitable for a Buddhist concept whichemphasizesmoretheuniversalratherthanitspersonalaspect. Buddhism uses the word as the antidote tosuch evil and antisocial tendencies as malevolence

10

(vyāpāda)andviolence(hiṃsa)whichendangerpeace.

The next brahmavihāra is karuṇā, that attitudewhich is conveyed by terms like sympathy,compassion, kindness, pity,mercy. It is explained inthe Pali tradition as “the desire to remove bane andsorrow from one’s fellow-beings.” Here the basicpsychological attitude isoneof sympathy forall thatsuffer.PerhapstheGermantermMitleidexpressesthisidea better than any other European word. Both inPa1i and Buddhist Sanskrit literature, words likeanukampa, compassion, and dāya, sharing of otherssorrows,areusedassynonymsofkaruṇā.Thisvirtuehelps toeliminate callousnessand indifference to thepain and suffering of others. It is because of thisspecific character of karuṇā as the chief weapon ineliminatingsorrow(dukkha)thattheMahayanistsgiveit the pre-eminent place among the brahmavihāras,whereas in Theravada Buddhismmettā occupies thecentral position. A Buddha’s karuṇā is discussed inMahayana literature under thirty-two aspects. [7]Hepitiesallbeingsbecausetheyareenmeshedinvarioussinsandcalamities.ItcaneasilybeseenthatthisidealismoreinkeepingwiththebodhisattvadoctrineoftheMahayanists. It is karuṇā that produces the ThoughtofEnlightenmentintheBodhisattva,andpromptshisself-sacrificeinforsakinghisownnirvanaforthegoodof other beings. The relative positions of maitri and

11

karuṇāinthetwosystems,however,indicatemerelyadifference in emphasis; for even in TheravadaBuddhism karuṇā plays a very important role,althoughmettāisgivenmoreprominence.

The third sublime attitude is mudita, orcongratulatorybenevolence,whichisdescribedinthePali tradition as “thedesire to see others rejoicing intheirhappiness and to feelhappywith them.” It canbeseenthatthisattitudemerelycomplementskaruṇā,or“sorrowinginotherssorrow.”Thiscomplementarynature of the two attitudes cannot be better impliedthan by rendering mudita by the German wordMitfreude, just as translating karuṇā by the Germanexpression das Mitleid as was suggested above.Etymologically,thetermmudita,congratulatoryjoy,isnottobeconfusedwiththewordmudutā (“softness,”Skr.mudṛtā),sometimesgivenasitsequivalent,foritisquite clear that it is derived from the earlier Vedicnoun mud, “joy.” This basic attitude is meant tocounteractallfeelingsofjealousyandrivalryinsocialdealings.Hence it is as significant for social concordandpeaceastheothertwobrahmavihāras.

With regard to the fourth sublime attitude, callednissaraṇa in Pali and upekṣa in Buddhist Sanskrit, itmust be admitted that the concept appears to besubjectiveand lacking in that characterof reciprocitywhichtheotherthreeimply.Butacloserscrutinyofits

12

applicationisboundtodispelsuchanimpression.Itistrue that the term etymologically signifiesindifference, or rather disinterestedness. Such aninterpretation would naturally divest the term of itssocial significance. But the incidence of the word inearlyBuddhist literatureclearlyshows that it isofasgreat social value as the other brahmavihāras.According to Buddhism, the cultivation of socialvirtuesmustbefreefromallpersonalbiasorselfhood(atta-diṭṭhi). The practice of the brahmavihāras, inother words, should be based on a fundamentalindifference to their consequences on the part of thesubject. Love and sympathy become sublime onlywhen they are applied universally, not selfishlylimitedtoanyoneparticularobjectof interest.Hencethe brahmavihāras are designated as the unlimited(appamaññā). [8] It is for this reason that Buddhistwriters employ the word “equanimity” in renderingthe term nissaraṇa. As a mental attitude with socialapplicationoraltruisticvalue,nissaraṇainthecontextof thebrahmavihārasmustberegardedasparallel tosamānattatā, [9] (Skr. samānātmata) or “evenness ofmind”giveninBuddhismasthefourthandlastofthefourbasesofservice(catusaṅgaha-vatthu),significantlyparaphrased in the olderBuddhist Sanskritworks assamāna-sukha-duhkhatā,[10]or“equanimity inthefaceofjoyandsorrow.”

13

Theconstant,methodical,anddeliberatecultivationof these brahmavihāras constitutes a form ofmeditation (bhāvanā) that is of the highest socialsignificance. The oft-repeated formula in the Canonrunsasfollows:

“Here, o monks, a disciple dwellspervading one direction with his heartfilled with friendliness [or love], likewisethe second, the third, and the fourthdirection;soabove,below,andaround;hedwells pervading the entire world,everywhere and equally, with his heartfilled with friendliness, abundant, growngreat, measureless, free from enmity, andfree frommalevolence.” [11] The same isrepeated with the necessary changes forthe other brahmavihāras as well. In theMahayana texts too a similar formulaoccursasaprocessofmeditationexercisedby theBodhisattva: “He abidespervadingthewholeuniverse[withitschiefelement,the truth, and its remotest element, space]withhismindaccompaniedbymaitri,withvast, great, undivided, unlimited, anduniversal freedom from hatred, rivalry,narrow-mindedness, andharmfulness.” [12] This too is repeated,

14

substituting karuṇā,mudita, andupekṣa formaitri.Therepeatedcontemplationofthesesublime states is constantly recommendedintheBuddhistbooksasprovidingthebestantidotetoallformsofsocialconflictsandtensions. In the words of a EuropeanBuddhist monk, “These four attitudes ofmind provide in fact the answer to allsituationsarisingfromsocialcontact.Theyarethegreatremoversoftension,thegreatpeacemakers in social conflict, the greathealersofwoundssufferedinthestrugglefor existence; levellers of social barriers,builders of harmonious communities …promoters of human brotherhood againsttheforcesofegotism.”[13]

As has been pointed out above, these four sublimeattitudes, or brahmavihāras, can be comprehendedwithin the single ethical conceptofbenevolence. It isthe matrix from which issue all the postulates ofBuddhist social ethics, the foundation uponwhich isbuilt thewholeedificeofBuddhistsocialphilosophy.Forbenevolenceistheantidotetoallformsofconflict(paṭigha) and hatred (dosa, Skr. dveṣa) which in theultimate analysis are found to lie at the bottom ofevery type of tension. Hence the concept of

15

benevolenceemergesinBuddhistsocialphilosophyasthe essential foundation for peace. The Buddha heldthat “hatred at no time does cease through hatred;hatredceasesonlythroughthenegationofhatred(i.e.benevolence).” [14] The famous Discourse onUniversal Love goes even further and gives theadmonition to those who would preserve peace tolove all beings at all times as a mother protects heronly child. “Whatever living beings there are inexistence, whether feeble or strong, without anyexception, whether tall, big, medium-sized, short,smallorgreat;whetherseenorunseen,livingnearorfar,thosealreadybornorthoseseekingbirth,mayallsuchbeingsbehappyatheart.Letnotanyonedeceiveanother; let no one disdain another under anycircumstances;letnoonewishilltoanyotherthroughenmity or resentment. As a mother guards her onlysonat theriskofherownlife, somayonedevelopaboundlessheart[oflove]towardsallcreatures…”[15]From such a lofty ethical point of view, themaintenanceofpeace, even in themost critical socialsituation,becomesacategoricalimperative.

Thus,inBuddhismwaronanyaccountcomestobecondemned, for even so-called“warsofdefence”areviolations of the basic attitude of benevolence. Eventhe enemy has to be loved like every other being inexistence.The futilityofwarwas emphasizedby the

16

Buddhawhen he appeared before his own relatives,the Sakyans and the Koliyans, who were about toplunge into a war of mutual destruction over aninsignificant dispute regarding the waters of a river(theRohiṇi)thatflowedthroughtheirtwostates.TheBuddha ironically reminded them that the humanblood they were going to let flow was much moreprecious than the waters for which they wereprepared to sacrifice their lives. It is this typicallyBuddhistideaofpeacethatrunsthroughtheEdictsofAsoka and gives the final touch of grace to thehumanismofhis character. It isnowbeyonddisputethatitwasprimarilyduetotheinfluenceofBuddhismthatthegreatEmperorrenouncedallconquestbywarand violence, and resorted to dhammavijaya or“winning by righteousness.” One of the principalcomponentsofthesocialethicofAsoka,asexpressedin his famous concept of dhamma (Skr. dharma), istermed dāya [16] or “compassion” (lit. sharing ofothers’ sorrows) which, as shown above, is only thesynonym for karuṇā, the second brahmavihāra ofBuddhism. Thus, quite in keepingwith the ethics ofbenevolence as expounded by the Buddha, Asokadenouncessuchsinfulqualitiesofheartas fierceness,anger,andenvy, [17]whichasmentionedpreviouslyconstitutetheveryoppositeofBuddhistbenevolence.One can point out several other similarities between

17

Asoka’sDhammaandthesocio-moralityinculcatedinthe brahmavihāras. In his great emphasis oncompassion and humanity this great Indian rulercertainlystandsoutasthemostrenownedexponentofthe Buddhist concept of benevolence, goodwill, andpeaceamongmenthattheworldhaseverseen.

Fromwhat has been said above it should be clearthat the concept of peace, according to Buddhism,arises from the basic socio-moral attitude ofbenevolence expressed in the fourfold formula ofmettā-karuṇā-mudita-nissaraṇa. Thus peace in theultimateanalysisisofpsychologicalorigin.Itisonlyamind free from anger and hatred, callousness andhardheartedness,jealousyandenvy,egotisticbiasandselfishness that can radiate peace which is the end-resultofbenevolent feelingsexercisedby individualsin their social actions. The attempt to secure peacethrough such external instruments of diplomacy aspactsandalliancesbetweennationsandothergroups,is, from the Buddhist point of view, utterly futile. Itignores the real psychological foundation of peacewhich is the attitude of benevolence radiating fromindividual centres. Thus the perennial lesson ofBuddhist social philosophy is that peace can only beachieved by the practice of benevolent qualities,chieflyofmettāoruniversal love,which,asthegreatIndian poet and humanist, Rabindranath Tagore,

18

realized,inhisSadhana(p.106),couldonlyresultfromthecultivationofthebrahmavihārasastaughttwenty-fourcenturiesearlierbythatgreatestofhumanists,theBuddha.

19

Notes

1. Buddhism and Society, published by the BauddhaSahityaSabha,Colombo.[Back]

2. Indian terms are given generally in their Paliform. Their Sanskrit equivalents are cited as“Skr.”[Back]

3. AṅguttaraNikāya,II.p.18(P.T.S.ed.).[Back]

4. See The Ethics of Buddhism by S. Tachibana,ChapterXIII,London1926.[Back]

5. MajjhimaNikāya,Sutta21.[Back]

6. See the conversation between Puṇṇa and theBuddha,Ibid.,Sutta145.[Back]

7. TheBodhisattvaDoctrine,byHarDayal,pp.24,61,173.London1932.[Back]

8. DīghaNikāya,III.p.223.(P.T.S.edn.).[Back]

9. Ibid.,III.p.152.[Back]

10. Mahāvastu,I.3.[Back]

11. DīghaNikāya,I,p.250etc.[Back]

12. DasabhūmikaSutra,p.34.Paris1926.[Back]

13. Ven.NyanaponikaThera,TheFourSublimeStates,

20

p. i. (Reprinted as Four Sublime State and ThePractice of Loving Kindness, Wheel 6/7. Kandy:BPS,1998.)[Back]

14. Dhammapada,verse5.[Back]

15. SuttaNipāta,verses146–150.[Back]

16. PillarEdictII.[Back]

17. PillarEdictIII[Back]

21

TableofContents

Titlepage 2TheConceptofPeace 4Notes 20

22