Comments on Political Buddhism: Article on Buddhism and Governance

What's interesting is that the whole "divine right...

2008-06-03T06:17:00.000-04:00

What's interesting is that the whole "divine right" idea just gets shifted around. Even in the US, the idea has gone from the "divine right" of kings to the "divine right" of the people. I guess in societies where people believe in a god or gods, there's no getting rid of the whole "divine right" of someone or the other to rule. It makes me wonder if the Hindu gods have just shifted their divine rights from kings to the people in places like India which currently have democracy, or what the current thinking is.

Dear Robert,The idea of ‘rights’ in the sense that...

2008-05-30T21:23:00.000-04:00

Dear Robert,
The idea of ‘rights’ in the sense that we use the word today is a very recent (18th cent) and a very particular European concept, so you are quite ‘right’ in raising the question of whether the Buddha (or whoever composed the Jatakas) said people have a ‘right’ to overthrow unjust governments. He did not. I was couching the Jataka’s idea in modern terms. The Jatakas imply that it is understandable, okay, not impious, to do so, it is only to be expected that it will happen. Nonetheless, even this was not a common notion in the pre-modern world. It didn’t matter who was ruling or who was revolting, divine justification was used. Charles I used it to justify his autocracy and Cromwell used it to justify cutting Charles’ head off. The Jatakas present the issue in purely practical and non-religious terms – if it is not to your advantage, if it is to your detriment, get rid of it.
Bhante Dhammika

Fear would be more like one possible cause for app...

2008-05-30T18:49:00.000-04:00

Fear would be more like one possible cause for approving or tolerating. Other causes could be more positive, such as admiration for the king's good deeds, etc.

At some sufficiently bad point, fear ceases to become a factor. Like animals backed into a corner with nothing to lose, fear no longer matters to people if things are really that bad.

Robert-I think you are right about the "approve or...

2008-05-30T15:29:00.000-04:00

Robert-

I think you are right about the "approve or tolerate" them comment. I might add that another one might just be plain fear, although that might fall under "tolerate."

Well, I can sort of imagine a possible scenario, b...

2008-05-29T19:52:00.000-04:00

Well, I can sort of imagine a possible scenario, but I don't think anyone would seriously bother unless things got really bad. To give you some sense of how many complaints people in colonial America had before they resorted to violence, check out the Declaration of Independence. (People who grow up in Canada and other place, BTW, are generally taught that the declaration is full of propaganda. True or not, it's probably still a good indication of what people feel needs to be true before they start thinking about violent revolt.)

It's worth noting that revolts don't have to be violent necessarily, but if things get to the point where one seems necessary to people they probably end up being that way. Just try to imagine a non-violent revolt in North Korea. Anyone trying to non-violently revolt would just be shot.

It would be interesting to check out the Jataka tales that Ven. Dhammika was talking about. I wonder... do they suggest that people should revolt in certain cases or simply that people will revolt in those cases whether they "should" or not? The reality is that "kings" do ultimately rule by consent. If everyone just decides not to listen to the king and kill him, then there's nothing he can do. No god will come to save him. So regardless of whether they "should" rule by consent, the fact is that ultimately they're only there because people approve or tolerate them.

The world is a rather violent place whether it should be or not.

I can't imagine a successful attempt to overthrow ...

2008-05-29T19:34:00.000-04:00

I can't imagine a successful attempt to overthrow the government here. You bring up an interesting point in that there might even be an unspoken agreement that would follow the old "divine right of kings." It seems like the whole system of government and even voting is sort of rigged to favor and keep in power certain people here and probably everywhere. I never thought of this sort of thing before. It's quite interesting.