A CRITIQUE OF BHIKKHU BUDDHADASA’S DHAMMIC SOCIALISM [As presented in
< http://www.wb-university.org/?do=shownews&banid=4&newid=8 >,
My comments are in blue between square brackets]

In response to rapid social change in Thailand, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (1906-1993), a leading Thai Buddhist thinker, has interpreted Buddhism not only from a religious point of view but also from a socio-political perspective. After devoting most of his life to reforming Buddhism in Thailand, Buddhadasa found it necessary to address socio-political issues from a Buddhist perspective. In the 1960s, he articulated his socio-political position in terms of “dhammocracy” (dhamma-thipatai): the social and political order should follow the law of Dhamma--the teachings of the Buddha. Later on in the atmosphere of the student led Revolution in Thailand from 1973 to 1976, Buddhadasa presented his unique theory of “dhammic socialism” (dhammika sangkhom-niyom).

 Buddhadasa bases his theory of dhammic socialism on nature. To him, nature represents the state of balance for the survival and well-being of human beings, animals, plants, and the ecology of the world. In the state of nature, every being produces according to its capacity and consumes according to its needs; no being, whatever form it has, hoards “surplus” for its own sake. Buddhadasa calls this balanced state of nature socialistic. Problems arise, however, when human beings begin to hoard a “surplus” for the sake of their own profit; this leaves others facing scarcity and poverty. According to Buddhadasa, human beings can and should produce a “surplus,” but the “surplus” should be distributed for the well-being of everyone, and Buddhism provides the ethical tools for this fair distribution. [A: What about in times of famine and such?  That’s why human communities ‘hoard’ as well.]

 Philosophically, dhammic socialism is based on this principle: none of us should take more than we really need. We should share whatever extra we have with those who have less. Social problems are fundamentally a result of greed. In other words, greed is at the heart of scarcity and poverty.1 Buddhadasa’s individualistic approach to social and economic problems, solved by the personal practice of self-restraint (sila “precepts” and vinaya “discipline”) and giving (dana), is, in many respects, reflective of his Theravada Buddhist world view. Within the modern economic situation, however, he fails to address the issue of scarcity and poverty at the structural level caused by the global market economy. In this paper, I propose to analyze and critique Buddhadasa’s theory of dhammic socialism from a more structural and comparative perspective.

BUDDHADASA IN THE THAI BUDDHIST CONTEXT
 Buddhadasa is one of the most important reformers in the history of Theravada Buddhism in Thailand. From the socio-political perspective, Buddhadasa is a leading reformist monk whose rationalistic interpretations of Buddhism are continuous with the reform of Thai Buddhism initiated by King Mongkut in the nineteenth century. [A: The King encouraged the study of the Tipitaka, while Buddhadasa discouraged it.] Buddhadasa has rationalized Theravada Buddhist doctrines and the Thai Buddhist tradition in response to modern scientific empiricism and the growing Thai middle class of professionals and intellectuals. In the process, Buddhadasa lays a theoretical framework for an alternative social and political order.2 From a doctrinal perspective, his emphasis on the study of the Pali Suttas and on “right understanding” (sammaditthi) has identified him as a representative of the Buddhist emphasis on the centrality of wisdom (panna) in Buddhist praxis.  [A: Retranslating the Pali?]  The publication of the series of Dhammaghosana (propagation of the Dhamma), nearly 70 volumes of Buddhadasa’s lectures, is probably the largest publication ever produced by a single Theravada Buddhist thinker in the entire history of the tradition.3 When the publication is completed, it  will  be  even  more  extensive  than  the  Pali  Canon itself. Donald K. Swearer evaluates the role and status of Buddhadasa in the history of Theravada Buddhism in the following way:

History may well judge him as the most seminal Theravada thinker since Buddhagosha, and may evaluate Buddhadasa’s role within the Buddhist tradition to be on a par with such great Indian Buddhist thinkers as Nagarjuna with whom he has been compared.4

A number of Buddhadasa’s lectures have contributed a Buddhist perspective to the discussion of socio-political issues--particularly those concerned with his theory of dhammic socialism.

BUDDHADASA’S DHAMMIC SOCIALISM
 The term “socialism” (sangkhom-niyom) in the Thai language is interesting in itself as it reflects a Buddhist perspective on socialism. The term sangkhom comes from the Sanskrit root sangha (community), and niyom from the Sanskrit root niyama (restraint). So sangkhom-niyom literally means the restraint of each member of the society for the benefit of the community. The restraint of oneself is one of the most basic teachings of the Buddha: sila (normality, “precepts”). As Buddhadasa understands it, the Buddhist sangha (community of monks) is a living example of the socialist way of life and the socialist community in Buddhism. For him, “dhammic socialism” is a socialism of the Dhamma. Buddhadasa bases his idea of dhammic socialism on his insights into nature, the teachings of the Buddha, and the practice of the Buddhist Sangha.

 A. Dhammic Socialism and the State of Nature
 According to Buddhadasa, the spirit or essence of socialism is rooted in nature (Thai: dhammajati ‘born of dhamma’) The state of nature in its pure sense is an example of pure socialism. Buddhadasa sees that:

The entire universe is a socialist system. Countless numbers of stars in the sky exist together in a socialist system. Because they follow a socialist system they can survive. Our small universe with its sun and planets including the earth is a socialist system.  Consequently, they do not collide.5 [A: Stars do collide, according to NASA: <http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1999/45/>]
Buddhadasa further develops his conception of the state of nature by introducing the Western theory of evolution, but while always keeping in mind the Buddhist notions of “conditionality” (idappaccayata), and “interdependent co-arising” (paticcasamuppada). He sees that after the earth became separated from the sun, it gradually cooled and hardened. As years went by this stone-like matter eroded into soil and dust, and various elements took shape. Nothing existed or came into being independently.

 The primordial waters gave rise to the first single-celled organisms we call life. Over time this life evolved into multi-celled forms and then into plants and animals.6 All aspects of nature combine in an interdependent relationship. Buddhadasa maintains that,

Even an atom is a socialistic system of interdependent parts. A molecule also exhibits socialistic characteristics in that it is made up of several interdependent atoms. On and on it goes--molecules combine to form tissue, tissues combine to form flesh or leaves or whatever, all interdependent and in balance, according to the principles of Nature’s pure socialism.7
Buddhadasa observes that among all forms of life in the natural world, no one species takes more than its share. In all these various levels of living beings, none ever consumes more than it needs. Even the first cellular organisms took in only what their simple cell structures required to survive. Groups of cells consumed only enough to sustain the colony. Then plant life evolved, each plant consuming only what it needed to maintain itself. Then followed animals--types of fish, birds, and others. All consume only as much as their systems require.8 A bird eats only what its stomach will hold. It is incapable of taking more than it must have to live.

 Throughout the process of evolution, according to Buddhadasa, from single celled organisms right up to the appearance of the first primitive human being, the natural world remained inherently socialistic. Nature did not provide any of its various forms with the means of hoarding more resources than were necessary for survival and development. Buddhadasa argues that in this state of nature:

Birds, insects, trees--all consume only as much as Nature has given them the means to take in, a level of consumption perfectly adequate for their needs. It is precisely this limiting..aspect of nature that has allowed the plant and animal world to survive and multiply in such profusion and diversity.9
Buddhadasa points out that in this condition of normalcy, stones, sand, trees, and insects simply are; no artificial theory or social system directs their interrelationships. They exist in a natural state of balance, or pure socialism.10 To elaborate more on his theory, Buddhadasa argues from an anatomical point of view that,

In these realms nothing exists independently: eyes work in conjunction with the ears, the ears with the nose, the nose with the mouth... All organs, big and small, need to work together performing according to their true nature (dhammasacca) as bodily components. Similarly, the spirit of socialism exists in everyone: the necessity of living together in a properly harmonious, balanced way.11 [A: If that were true there would be no illness and death.]

 When human beings first evolved, argues Buddhadasa, and inhabited the forests and jungles, they had no granaries nor storehouses. They ate only what was necessary to survive; they gathered daily whatever food they needed. Buddhadasa claims that in this earliest period, no person or group stockpiled a surplus of anything, so social problems as we know them today did not yet exist. They lived according to a natural socialism for hundreds of thousands of years. We are here today because nature has maintained a harmonious socialistic balance through the entire evolutionary process. Buddhadasa argues that this natural balance was threatened, when a few “un-natural” human beings began to hoard more products for themselves than they needed. [A: The hoarding part is in the Tipitaka, quoted from the Agga Sutta, but Buddhadasa Added the ‘unnatural/natural’ definition which was not in the Tipitaka.  Therefore some parts of this is from the Tipitaka while others are his own interpretation of things.] This hoarding left others with a shortage and gave rise to rivalry instead of cooperation. Human intelligence was then applied to methods of hoarding resources--grain, food, and other products--and accumulating wealth and power in order to take advantage of others. Buddhadasa contends that,

Nature would have each of us use no more than we actually need. For years people have failed to heed the way of Nature, competing with one another to take as much as they could, causing the problems that we live with to this day. If we were to take only what is enough, none of these problems would exist, because then people would not be taking advantage of others and oppressing them.12

 The question, then, is how much is enough? Buddhadasa suggests that there is no set rule. It varies according to the time, place, and situation. He complains that these days it seems nothing is ever enough—“Even two entire mountains of gold are not enough to satisfy the desires of a single person”13—human desires keep multiplying, increasing our wants at the expense of other people. Once supplies were hoarded, problems of unequal distribution and access arose. The problems multiplied over time. Leaders of various groups would be in charge of stockpiling supplies for the group, and fighting among the groups was inevitable. To maintain control over society and to limit human greed (kilesa), laws and moral systems were developed.

 Social justice, according to Buddhadasa, can be obtained when people “return” to the balanced state of natural socialism. To him, socialism is based on a principle in accord with the way of nature; that none of us should take more than we really need, and we should share our surplus with those who have less. We all have a natural right to take as much as we need, but not more. People all over the world should learn to share a portion of what they have, even if they consider what they share to be essential to their own well-being. Such sharing would be in accordance with morality (siladhamma), and everyone would benefit from it. After all, this does not mean that we should not produce a surplus. People have a right to produce more than they need, and it is even appropriate to do so if the surplus is shared with others.  [A: There should also be a limit to that, otherwise more and more natural resources would be abused by that community.]

 From a religious perspective, Buddhadasa’s argument contends that in the state of nature there exists the perfect essence of morality (sila-dhamma): the condition of harmonious balance and normalcy. Buddhadasa calls this balance and normalcy the plan or intention (cetana) of nature [A: Nature is primarily rupadhamma in this sense, it can have no namadhamma]. People existed in this condition for ages until they lost morality and natural socialism as a consequence of their ignorance (avijja). When they transgress the natural balance in the cosmos they suffer the consequences of their ignorance. Nature punishes them for their ignorance and the destruction they inflict on it. This was the beginning of sin (papa) [A: Papa is in the citta, [mind] and begins already with lobha, dosa and moha beings are born with]. For Buddhadasa, socialism was not actually the creation of human beings, but rather the original state of nature which encompassed both the human and animal worlds. Social problems arose when human beings acted against this original intention of nature. More and more problems arose over time as a result of human effort--more and more distinctions were made among people. [A: According to the Tipitaka, the distinctions are according to paccayas [conditions] accumulated individually.] At some point it became necessary for human beings to construct a socialist system themselves because they had so separated themselves from nature.14

 From a Buddhist perspective, the truth (dhammasacca) or the essence of nature (dhammajati) is the essence of the dhamma. It is simply this: things are imbued with the spirit of socialism; [A: He’s mixing dhamma terms with social ones without regards for its original use in the Tipitaka/ancient Commentaries.] miraculously, all things exist in unity with one another even though we may not have the eyes to see this truth or the wisdom to comprehend it. [A: There has always been arising and falling away in nature: countless ‘big bangs’ and such, as described in the Tipitaka.  On a more fundamental level, the realization of destruction and change when directly experienced at the minutest level with great panna is one of the conditions of preliminary knowledge that leads to the experience of nibbana.] Nothing can exist independently; everything exists interdependently.15 [A: Except for nibbana, the most perfect of happiness and permanence.]  Socialism, from a Buddhist perspective, includes not just human beings, but also all living beings and the entire natural environment. Buddhadasa argues that if each of us were to exercise our natural rights to the extent allowed by nature, this world would be filled with a contentment such as we attribute to the realm of Buddha Maitreya (the Buddhist Utopia), where there is no suffering (dukkha) or dissatisfaction. For Buddhadasa, this is the highest law of nature and the basis of his theory of dhammic socialism.  [A: The greatest dukkha in Buddhism is death and illnesses/suffering, not just ‘unnatural’ rights and such.]  Buddhadasa’s theory that the natural state of plants, animals, and human beings is socialistic is insightful and well received. [A: In the Tipitaka, plants and other non beings are only rupa, they cannot have namas or intentions of any kind.] One may argue, however, that his interpretation of cosmic and atomic systems are also socialistic is problematic. The movement of stars and planets in the cosmos and of atoms in a molecule are mechanical and do not reflect ethical or social values. The same is true for the functioning of cells and organs in living beings. But here Buddhadasa uses “socialism” as a comprehensive term for all levels of being. His view of nature, however, is similar to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin writes:

It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic condition of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long-past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were.16
Yet, what is behind Buddhadasa’s state of nature is quite different from Darwin’s theory of natural selection. According to Darwin, man not only evolved, but evolved by natural selection. Natural selection pictures the world in a constant process of change, but without any apparent prior intention of going anywhere in particular or of becoming anything in particular. In other words, Darwin’s principle of evolution is without what Buddhadasa calls the plan or intention (cetana) of nature. According to the Darwinian theory of natural selection, living organisms are all engaged in a “struggle for existence” in which only the fittest survive. But some Darwinians have also found among plants and animals some forms of  “mutual aid” and “mutual support” for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.17 This modification of the survival of the fittest would align Darwinism to a certain degree with Buddhadasa’s view of nature as “socialistic cooperation.”

 Darwin’s zoological conceptions of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest reinforce Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) socio-political theory of the human state of nature. Hobbes maintains that nature has made human beings equal in their faculties of the body and mind. For the physical body, even the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest by various means. For the faculties of the mind, prudence is but experience which, with equal time and opportunity, equally bestows on all human beings the same capacities. From this equality of ability, argues Hobbes, arises equality of hope in attaining one’s ends. Therefore, if any two men desire the same things which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes maintains that in the state of nature,
if one (person) plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life, or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.18

 According to Hobbes, three principal causes of strife among human beings are competition, diffidence, and glory. The first makes men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. Hobbes writes:
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.19
And again,

To this war of every man, against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no justice.20

 According to Hobbes, the passions that incline human beings to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them. For these reasons, human beings drew up agreements and made laws in order to obtain peace. Hobbes’ state of nature is fundamentally at odds with Buddhadasa’s. While Hobbes maintains that in the state of nature, human beings are at war against each other; law and order and peace are the creation of human beings. Buddhadasa’s theory of the state of nature is just the opposite. Buddhadasa says that in the state of nature, human beings are socialistic, cooperative, and at peace. War is the creation of mankind out of the unnatural desire for “surplus.” While Hobbes discusses only the socio-political dimension of the human state of nature, Buddhadasa’s theory is more holistic: it embraces the entire world of nature--cosmos, plant and animal species as well as human beings.

 Buddhadasa’s theory provides a positive foundation for solving today’s world-wide ecological crisis. In his book, The Dream of the Earth, Thomas Berry, a contemporary American eco-theologian, writes:

we are beginning to move beyond democracy to biocracy, to the participation of the larger life community in our human decision-making processes... we must now understand that our own well-being can be achieved only through the well-being of the entire natural world about us.21
With the contemporary environmental crisis--the destruction of the tropical rain forests, the expanding pollution in the atmosphere, and the extinction of many living species--Buddhadasa’s theory of the socialistic, balanced state of nature represents a progressive ecological worldview.

 B. Dhammic Socialism and Religion
 Buddhadasa argues that Buddhism, and all world religions for that matter, are essentially socialistic in nature. [A: It is not. It is mainly individual achievement, either alone or within a group; in fact even alone one would be constantly with kilesas until all kilesas has been eliminated, then there is true ‘individuality’, as in an arahant, without the illusion of a self.] Buddhism in particular is a socialist religion, both in its principles and its spirit. [A: Only in certain aspects.  The vinaya provides community living for the individual.  Buddhism aims at spiritual achievements.] Buddhadasa maintains that the Buddha was born into this world to help all beings--not to benefit any one person or even himself. [A: He also benefited himself first, otherwise he could not have shown the way to the perfection he had found.  And we are not all Buddhas. They are very special beings who can really benefit others to the maximum possible of each individual being helped.] If we consider the Buddha’s compassionate behavior toward all living beings, we can see the highest form of socialism. [A: True, but not only that, the highest form of altruism ever as well.  That is, not only things like hoarding and social strife but mental release from all kilesas.]The socialistic ideal of Buddhism finds expression in the concept of the bodhisattva.22 The bodhisattva is one who not only helps others, but sacrifices himself or herself, even his or her own life, for others. [A: This is more Mahayanist than Theravada, where kusala, especially panna, in the citta leads to all kusala.]

 From Buddhadasa’s interpretation, the founders (sasada) of all religions have affirmed that they came to the world for the benefit of all beings; all have spoken out against excessive consumption. Buddhadasa claims that the founders of every religion have wanted people to live according to socialist principles in order to act in the interest of society as a whole. He also maintains that Buddhism and all religions are founded on the ideal of love and compassion toward all beings. [A: Not love as such in the Theravada Tipitaka, but metta [loving kindness, friendship and no enmity whatsoever. The expression ‘love and compassion’ reminds us of Christianity rather than Buddhism’.] This attitude engenders equality and freedom, and the sense of the essential interrelatedness of all beings.  All religions are, therefore, socialistic in this sense.

 In Buddhism, all members of the Buddhist community (sangha)--monks and laity--are not only taught but are required to consume no more than their fair share of material goods. Excessive consumption is wrong and demeritorious. True Buddhists, argues Buddhadasa, have an unconscious ideal of socialism. It has existed in the Buddhist doctrine as well as the practice among Buddhist communities since the Buddha’s time. Buddhadasa recalls:

We must keep in mind that socialism is not something new and faddish. If we were to go back about 2000 years we would meet the finest socialist system which was part of the flesh and blood of the Buddhist community. [A: Partly true.  The Sangha during the Buddha’s lifetime was headed by the Buddha as supreme leader, one Thus Gone.  After his parinibbana it might be said that the Sangha was the supreme socialist structure, within the vinaya.  This substructure, no matter how influential, only existed in the context of the absolute monarchy of the cities and countries in those days.  The Buddhist Sangha was also forbidden to take part in politics unless someone asked their opinion, otherwise they should remain above and beyond politics.  This is also why strict Theravadas do not approve of Buddhadasa’s using dhamma terms to describe social situations, thereby twisting the meanings around to indicate secular themes.  This sometimes leads to confusion for those who started out reading his books and later studying the Tipitaka, since the same terminology can mean completely different things.] Consequently, if we hold fast to Buddhism we shall have a socialist disposition in our very being. We shall see our fellow humans as friends in suffering--in birth, old age, sickness and death--and, hence, we cannot abandon them. [A: Seeing the truth and abandoning them are different things. We can’t help everyone, not even the Buddha was able to. This is why there are four brahmaviharas: metta [friendship/non ill will], karuna [assistance when help is needed], mudita [empathic joy with others’ good fortune] and lastly upekkha [neutrality where neither of the former three apply]] Everyone here should be able to understand this statement. The elderly, especially, may remember how our forefathers taught us to be altruistic, to consider others as friends in all aspects of life and death. This ideal of pure socialism must be acted out, not just talked about, and just for political purposes or for one’s selfish, devious and false gain. Buddhists need to become familiar with the socialism inherent in the Buddhist community, using it as a weapon against bloody forms of socialism which promote one’s own evil deeds and forces them on others.23  [A: This is again partly true. The four brahmaviharas are what makes any society/community harmonious.  But warfare is inherent in human society and most beings’ societies as well.  Ants fight, chimps fight, elephants do as well as people, including Buddhists, in their own ways and for their own causes, in the Tipitaka.  They never use the Buddha or the Dhamma as their excuse, but they do not always coexist in harmony, although they are conscious that killing is wrong, according to the five precepts.  When provoked to their individual limits, those who are not enlightened, at least the sotapanna level, would still have yet to eradicate all their kilesas and thus have the potential to kill.]

  According to Buddhadasa, a good way to look at the meaning of socialism is to think of it as not taking more than one’s fair share--using only what is necessary so that the rest is available for other’s use. Both in the teachings of the Dhamma and in the rules for the monastic order (vinaya), it is written that Buddhist monks must live with only the bare necessities. All of these rules are given simply to guarantee that monks will not take more than their share, so that others will be sure to have enough to meet their needs. [A: I think everyone has the right to think whatever he pleases including inventing all the theories he wishes, and write about them ten times as long as the Tipitaka if he wishes.  The only thing is to do what the Buddha did, which is to separate the Sangha from the secular.  Those with few needs would find the bhikkhu’s life natural and satisfying, while those who still enjoy the life of the laity would still be able to understand and practice the dhamma to their own level of understanding.  The second thing I object to personally is to corrupt the dhamma terms by using them to mean social study connotations. Again, it tends to confuse the audience as to the real meaning according to the ancient Buddhist usage.  Thirdly, interpreting the dhamma this way and insisting that this is what the Buddha taught is in a way putting words into the Buddha’s mouth, a grave offense for a Theravada Bhikkhu.]  Buddhadasa argues further that the Dhamma teaches us to be content with what we have--to accumulate and own just enough to take care of our material needs. [A: What about the accumulation of devas, or even great kings?] Accordingly, it places great emphasis on being generous with what we have. [A: The emphasis is to use what we have wisely, even when giving dana it is not just to anyone, but to those most ‘worthy’ first, then those least worthy such as beggars and such.] A true Buddhist community, according to Buddhadasa, would be content with the basic necessities of life. Whatever a person did not really need would be left available for the use of the entire community. [A: Again, this was not entirely true. Kings and other people in authority kept surplus for themselves not only for the times of need.] Buddhadasa recasts the historical past of Thailand as a kind of Buddhist Utopia:

Religion was the foundation of our culture, our siladhamma. Countless generations of our ancestors have been practicing religion as a central part of their culture. It was a fundamental part of each person?s life, of every home, and even of the entire country.24  [A: What about the times of Asoka, which was also a Buddhist Empire?]

He observes that when villagers in his home area went out to the fields to plant fruit trees, vegetables, or grain, they recited this little verse as they planted the seeds:

Food for a hungry bird is our merit;
Food for a hungry person--our charity.25
The villagers considered that they would receive merit (punna) if a bird ate food from the plant; if a hungry person took food from their fields, they considered it alms-giving or charity.  [A: Maybe in his village.  My parents usually give to people who ask, but would regard those who took without permission as thieves, to be dealt with by the authorities.] The villagers always planted enough food plants so that birds and hungry people could have what they needed. [A: Without asking or even telling you?  It still would be stealing even if you were the one to take something without asking the owner first.  In the Visuddhimagga, a monk almost starved to death among wild mango fruit until a villager found him and correctly offered him the fruit.  Of course, the Visuddhimagga was written in a time when there were arahants and not just contemporary social thinkers.]

 For Buddhadasa, the socialist characteristics of dhamma manifest themselves in the harmonious balance of everything. He argues that when people fall out of harmony with this natural balance, they experience suffering in the form of social injustice, tension and anxiety. [A:  The dhamma is not only about the balance of things, but rather the evolution: the arising, changing and falling away. The balance is only part of it, a very temporary part, unless it refers to the complete permanence of nibbana, but that is not common, nor is it inherent in human society.] So, instead of putting emphasis on solving social problems at the symptomatic level such as food shortages and hunger, Buddhadasa suggests that we should lead the society back to the socialistic and harmonious principle of dhammic socialism. [A: This is well and fine, but I think he should have used his own terminology and not bend the Buddhist ones defined by the Buddha and the ancient commentators of over a thousand years ago to modern day social semantics.  Just invent a few technical terms, such as he did.  ‘dhammika sangkhom-niyom’ is still based on Pali as in the Tipitaka, only with added definition according to the usage of the Thai Socialists of the time.] Buddhadasa believes that “life in the truest sense is sustained by the Dhamma not just by food.”26 Buddhadasa’s proposal seems to presuppose a religiously grounded society not unlike the monastic sangha.  [A: Even the sangha these days think the vinaya is unimportant, and tend to behave more and more like the laity, so how could they expect the laity to live like the sangha?]

 Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialistic ideal may be relevant, if it operates naturally and spontaneously on a voluntary basis. There is a problem, however, if the sangha’s rules are to apply to society at large. Louis Gabaude comments that,

A civil society is composed of members who did not choose to get into it, who do not want to get out of it, and who do not have the same ideals. A society of “renouncers,” such as the religious disciples of the Buddha, is composed of members who chose to “get out” of a civil society and to live according to a given ideal embedded in precise rules. Is it valid to assume that the principles of a community of “renouncers” apply to the society from which they wanted to leave?27 In the modern context, if the Buddhist principles of self-restraint (sila and vinaya), loving-kindness (metta-karuna) and giving (dana) are voluntarily practiced by those Buddhists inside and outside of the sangha, they are acceptable to everyone in the society. But, from a modern socio-political perspective, to impose the religious rules and regulations of the Buddhist sangha onto a secular society would violate people’s freedom of religion. People should be left with their freedom of choice to accept or reject any religious rules or traditions. To impose the norms of a voluntary religious community in a society is both unrealistic and problematic. It would turn a dynamic modern society like Thailand into a static religious fundamentalist state. Furthermore, it is naive to think that a model of sangha government could order a diverse, pluralistic modern nation-state.

 C. Dhammic Socialism and Social Ethics
 From a social and ethical point of view, Buddhadasa makes the distinction between “socialism” and “individualism.” For him, to carry out the task of social work, or services to society, we must embrace the “social-ism” of the work; otherwise we are advocating “individual-ism,” or service in the interest of individuals. Socialism, according to Buddhadasa, focuses on the welfare of people in all sectors of a society as well as the examination and correction of social problems at all levels. In a society that puts the interests of individuals above those of the community, social problems cannot be   effectively addressed. Buddhadasa criticizes individualism holding that, as the basic principle of most democratic societies, it cannot provide a basis for the well-being of all people in the society because it promotes individual benefits rather than social benefits. He argues that dhammic socialism, on the contrary, is more concerned with social benefits and can save the world from what appears to be self-destruction--the world of individualism and material development which promotes consumerism, selfishness and the devastation of natural resources and the environment.

 According to Buddhadasa, social problems arose as societies formed. When people lived isolated from one another or in small groups, as in the Stone Age, social problems did not exist or were very few. As the population increased and people began living together in larger and larger groups, social problems began to appear. As societies grew and multiplied, people oppressed one another and the problems grew until they became crises. In this analysis, Buddhadasa’s concept of urban society differs from the German sociologist Emile Durkheim’s theory of the division of labor. In his book, The Division of Labor in Society, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) explores how human beings, as social beings, create a division of labor and progress in civilization. Durkheim’s main thesis is that the volume and density of population are the cause of the expanding division of labor, and hence the cause of civilization. By the volume of population, Durkheim means the number of people living in one area; by the density of population, he means the dense and rapid social interaction among people in a given society. It is, for Durkheim, the volume and density of population that force people to specialize their work in order to improve survival in the new social environment. This division of labor is the cause of progress and civilization.28 Like Durkheim, Buddhadasa sees the volume and density of population in a given society as the cause of social tensions. But, while Durkheim regards social tensions as the cause of the ever more diverse division of labor in society, which results in a progressly better civilization, Buddhadasa regards social tensions as the cause of social conflicts and crises which need to be solved by returning to the spirit of sharing and loving-kindness under dhammic socialism. In short, Buddhadasa seems to propose a return to a pre-capitalist state.

 Buddhadasa suggests that whatever system is laid out for the functioning of a social group, the principles of such a system must be for the good of the society as a whole, not just for individuals or for any one person. Buddhadasa argues that the content of society is social, not individual. Even the need to procreate and produce children is, after all, a social matter. Human survival depends upon the support of others in the spirit of cooperation and care. From his emphasis on the public good, it seems that Buddhadasa disagrees with the capitalist conception of private property. This would align Buddhadasa with Karl Marx on this specific issue. Marx describes Adam Smith as the “Luther of political economy.” According to Marx, Adam Smith did to political economy exactly what Luther did to religion. As Luther transformed the external theology into the inner essence of man, Adam Smith transformed external property into private property. Adam Smith, in Marx’s own words, is the “prophet” of the “religion of private propert.” Private property is embodied in a human being, and human beings have become the essence of private property. Marx comments that,

Just as Luther recognized religion and faith as the essence of the external world and in consequence confronted Catholic paganism; just as he transcended external religiosity by making religiosity the inner essence of man; just as he negated the idea of priests as something separate and apart from the layman by transferring the priest into the heart of the layman; so wealth as something outside man and independent of him--and therefore only to be acquired and maintained externally--is abolished [aufgehoben]. I.e. its external and mindless objectivity is abolished inasmuch as private property is embodied in man himself and man himself is recognized as its essence--but this brings man himself into the province of private property, just as Luther brought him into the province of religion.29
Ironically, whereas Buddhadasa disagrees with Adam Smith’s internalization of public property into private property, he finds himself on the same religious grounds as Martin Luther. Just as Luther internalized Christian teachings and deconstructed a formal priesthood into the inner essence of human beings, Buddhadasa internalizes Buddhist teachings and symbols into inner or psychological states.

 Buddhadasa openly looks back into history for a more harmonious human condition. In order for people all over the world to live in happiness, Buddhadasa suggests that we must go backwards and return to the way of the Dhamma: the harmony and balance of the socialistic state of nature.30 [A: Nature is constantly checking fluctuations and imbalances, from instant to instant, from ages to ages.  There was never permanent perfect balance at any time, hence anicca, dukkha and anatta.  Otherwise even volcanoes and rainstorms wouldn’t arise, nor would poisonous snakes and insects.] In performing any kind of social service, this basic principle should be borne in mind. At this point in history, according to Buddhadasa, the highest form of social work is to enable people to back up and get onto the right track. In his view, people nowadays have gone so far off course that the world seems headed for disaster: “We are about to fall into an abyss, if we have not gone over the edge already.”31 The problem of poverty, for example, is a result of people having gotten off the track. Even the current problems of illiteracy and ignorance of good health practices arise from having gone in the wrong direction.

 By getting on track Buddhadasa means the recognition that human beings all face the same basic problem: overcoming suffering (dukkha). The most fundamental problems are not material ones like overpopulation and poverty, but rather the increase in desires (tanha), defilements (kilesa) and ignorance (avijja) which are the causes of psychological suffering. For Buddhadasa, solving social problems means returning to these basic causes of suffering. Social work for the benefit of all humanity in the most basic sense is to overcome this suffering. Buddhadasa comments:

It is almost laughable simply to speak of solving the problems of hunger, illiteracy, and illness, because these are not the real problems at all; they are only symptoms. The fundamental problem is the lack of religion (sasana) and moral principles (siladhamma) in modern society. If we were to solve these basic problems, would illiteracy, hunger, and illness disappear? Even if they did not, people who had never learned to read could still be happier than the most literate among us.32
Again, he criticizes the current situation because many groups claim to be working for society, but they are actually after personal gain and glory:
How can people who form international organizations solve the world’s problems when they are made up of selfish people?... Why do we not, instead, solve the problem by becoming human in the fullest sense of the word, according to the way of God and Nature, that is, putting the welfare of others before our own selfish interests.33

 As a religious leader, Buddhadasa condemns killing, war, and the preparation for war. The cataclysmic nature of warfare threatens all forms of life. Even animals are unintentionally subjected to the brutal behavior of human beings. Instead, he suggests the practice of the Buddhist ethical principle of loving-kindness (metta-karuna):

Today people are so cruel that they have dropped a bomb knowing that it could kill [hundreds of] thousands of human beings... Both so-called socialist as well as capitalist countries are prepared to drop such bombs... If we want peace we should choose the path of peace. Killing others will only lead to being killed. The only way of living harmoniously together is to act out of lovingkindness (metta-karuna) ... We should overcome evil with good, for evil cannot be overcome by evil.34

 For Buddhadasa, social problems are mainly concerned with social ethics. Solving social problems, according to Buddhadasa, depends largely on people following these moral principles: we should act in the best interests of the entire community; avoid the consumption of goods beyond our simple needs; share with others what is not essential for us, even if we consider ourselves poor; give generously of our wealth if we are well-to-do. Buddhadasa believes that following these principles will lead to the solution of various social and economic problems. [A: In the Tipitaka, dana [generosity, giving] doesn’t have to be material.  To give away something we find useful and perfect for us to someone who might never use it is completely useless both for us and the person who receives it.  Sometimes there are also those who have all they need and more materially, who are in need of the dhamma.  That is also the best of all dana, the ‘Dhammadana’ which a monk should be more concerned with than any material ‘sharing of what is not essential for us’.]

 Although Buddhadasa believes that the nature of society is essentially social--a set of complex social relationships--not simply a combination of individuals, and advocates “social-ism” rather than “individual-ism,” his approach is still individualistic. For him, personal greed is the root of social problems. No matter how hard we have tried to change social systems, if we do not apply the Buddhist ethical principle of self-restraint to ourselves and to every one in society, we are bound to failure in solving social problems. Buddhadasa’s individualistic approach might work well in a simple traditional society of the ancient past or in remote rural Thai society, but it would fail to solve any structural problems in a complex society like contemporary Thailand, which is influenced by the highly organized global market economy under capitalism.  [A: In the old days it is not expected that monks solve social problems; it is the King or the authorities of the area to do so.  This is not a Prince of the Church as in the Vatican or, earlier, the Pharaohs or even the South American Rulers of the State/Religion.]

 D. Dhammic Socialism and Capitalism
 Ideologically, dhammic socialism is different from capitalism in that it offers a different economic system and a different political ideology, and their leaders have different moral qualities. Buddhadasa makes the distinction between a “capitalist” in the Western sense and a “wealthy person” in the Buddhist sense. A person of great material wealth (Sanskrit: sresthi) in the Buddhist tradition differs significantly from the contemporary capitalist (Thai: nai-thun ‘master of capital’) A capitalist, according to Buddhadasa, is one who keeps accumulating material wealth far beyond what he or she actually needs. A sresthi, on the other hand, is a wealthy person who uses his or her accumulated wealth to build rong-than (almshouse) for the sake of social welfare. A rong-than was an almshouse or a communal place where the poor could come and receive what they lacked materially. The status of sresthi was measured by the number of their rong-than. If they had no almshouses they could not be called sresthi. The more rong-than one had, the wealthier one was considered to be. [A: I’m not sure about this definition. I don’t think all rich people in the Buddha’s time built almshouses.]

 Buddhadasa argues that during the Buddhist era, even such terms as slave or servant had a socialistic meaning. He portrays a Buddhist Utopia in which slaves did not want to leave the sresthi. [A: I don’t know if there are other examples but there was at least the one story of the slave girl whose master abused her and especially grabbed her by the hair so that she shaved her head, upon which her owner forced her to wrap some rope around her head to grab her by, hence her name ‘Rajjumala’.  She was about to hang herself from the continuous mistreatment when the Buddha went to her and taught her the Dhamma. Wherever Buddhadasa’s utopia was, it was not India of the Buddha’s time.]  On the contrary, under capitalism, “slaves” hate capitalists. Buddhadasa claims that,

Sresthi during the Buddhist era treated their slaves like their own children. All worked together for a common good. They observed the moral precepts together on Buddhist sabbath days... In those days slavery was socialistic and did not need to be abolished. Slave and master worked for the common good. The kind of slavery which should be abolished, exists under a capitalist system in which a master treats slaves or servants like animals. Slaves under such a system always desire freedom, but slaves under a socialist system want to remain with their masters because they feel at ease... Slaves were recipients of love, compassion, and care.35
Buddhadasa argues that Buddhists have espoused socialism since antiquity, whether at the level of king, wealthy merchant or slave. Buddhadasa claims that most slaves were content with their status even though they could not be ordained as monks.36 [A: They could if their masters allowed them.] According to Thai Buddhist tradition, however, the worst thing that could happen to a Thai man was the violation of his religious right to be ordained as a monk. Consequently, one can hardly agree with Buddhadasa that a male slave would be happy with his status without the right to ordination. [A: Thai slaves usually are prisoners of war brought back from their homes and awarded as free labor to those who found favor with the ruling Thais in power.  One could hardly say these people were glad to leave their homes to come and be slaves in a foreign land.  Generally, to keep them from escaping, they are strung up by their heels with rattan ropes during the march from their conquered lands.] Buddhadasa also claims that the slaves could be released from their obligations, or continue in them, as they chose. Buddhadasa’s view of Thai slavery is too utopian and too positive. He ignores the negative aspects of it, including parents abusing their children by selling them as slaves to pay the parents’ debts, being born into slavery and the arbitrary beating and torture of slaves. Buddhadasa’s claim that Buddhist socialism in those days was pure and totally different from the socialism of today is historically unfounded.

 Buddhadasa maintains that without loving-kindness (metta-karuna) and charity (dana), the rich are strictly capitalists who simply accumulate wealth and power for themselves. They oppress their workers in order to make profit, accumulate excessive wealth, and reinvest for their own further profits. Buddhadasa places too much emphasis on the moral quality of the rich without asking the ethical basis of the prevailing social structure. Modern economists argue that the decision of the rich to make a profit and reinvest is rational. Under a market economy, economic laws and productivity take the place of moral responsibility. Adam Smith, for example, argues that the free market transforms private vice into public good. It turns greed into economic productivity. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith maintains that by following the logic of profits, those who hold capital and make economic decisions, however unintentionally, eventually help the poor through their economic activity. Smith writes:

He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this case, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.37
For Smith, people are rational and calculating when it comes to their own self-interest. So, he argues, let these self-interested, free-market consumers associate with competing producers. Soon they will have products of high quality at the lowest possible price.38 Self-interest among consumers, combined with competition among producers, will transform individual greed into the fuel of an efficient economy.

 This view differs radically from the economy of dhammic socialism. Buddhadasa proposes that the wealthy person (sresthi) in dhammic socialism employs workers in a cooperative effort for the welfare of the entire community. Wealthy people during the Buddhist era, according to Buddhadasa, were respected by the proletariat rather than attacked by them. Thus, the rich should not be capitalists who exploit their workers and hoard wealth, but sresthi whose high economic and social position enables them to be benefactors to the workers and the poor. [A: There were ‘bad’ sresthis in the Tipitaka as well.] In contrast to Adam Smith, Buddhadasa depicts the ideal economy as rather static without economic competition and a market economy, but with a high level of social welfare based on the personal moral behavior of  the  wealthy. Furthermore, Buddhadasa does not question the basis of such wealth whether it was fairly acquired or not.

 Under contemporary capitalism, Buddhadasa rightly points out that people are destroying the earth’s raw materials, natural resources, and environment. Buddhadasa complains that the earth’s resources are being consumed in unnecessarily large quantities, only to be used carelessly and wastefully. Often times they are turned into instruments of harm: minerals are taken from the earth and made into weapons of mass destruction. Eventually those resources will become depleted, having been used for wasteful and utterly useless ends. Buddhadasa comments that,

If we were to use the earth’s resources according to the laws of Nature and within its limits, we would not need to use as much as we do now. There would be plenty for everyone for years to come, or even indefinitely. Nowadays, however, we are squandering the earth’s minerals so destructively that before long they will be gone. Acting in such a way is contrary to the Dhamma... If we were to use them as we should, according to the laws of Nature, there would always be an abundant supply.39
Buddhadasa maintains, furthermore, that if people would use only what was necessary, the world would have sufficient resources for all. According to Buddhadasa, excessive hoarding leads to scarcity, and scarcity leads to poverty. Therefore, not to take or consume in excess will lead to the elimination of poverty. Here, Buddhadasa seems to have a contradictory view. One could ask if, in such case, there would be any wealthy benefactors.

 In Buddhadasa’s view, human beings have exploited and devastated nature until many species of animals and plants have become extinct. Even some races of homo sapiens have become extinct because of the selfishness and oppression of other human beings. In Buddhadasa’s view, selfishness has led to great disparities among people with some becoming excessively rich and others excessively poor. Both the rich and the poor, according to Buddhadasa, do not understand socialism correctly. This ignorance has been partially responsible for their respective conditions: the poverty of the poor and their exploitation by the rich. Buddhadasa maintains that wealth need not be condemned in and of itself. The rich should work to alleviate the conditions of the poor for the good of society. The poor, for their part, should improve their own conditions by working diligently and avoiding the kinds of misconduct which leads them to poverty.40 Buddhadasa’s class analysis here is based on personal moral grounds without any regard for the structural causes of social and economic class. Here again, he reveals his individualistic approach to social and economic problems.

 Buddhadasa promotes the use of technology only if it is for the benefit of society at large. He agrees that modern technology should be used to produce a surplus, but this surplus should be made available to all who are in need, not for the profit of individuals.41 He believes that if people were to use technology in producing the products they all need and if shared, there would be plenty to go around. [A: How is that good for the environment if everyone gets more?  Moderation is what is taught in the Tipitaka, and by our present king, who teaches us that good planning and management can provide enough/‘sufficient economy’ for everyone, especially at the agricultural level, which involves the majority of the population in Thailand.] For mass media technology, Buddhadasa proposes that communication technology such as radios, televisions, and computers not be used solely for personal gain, but for the welfare of society. If these inventions were used in a dhammic socialistic way, he believes that peace and happiness in the world could be achieved in a short time. In short, Buddhadasa supports the use of technology as a means to produce a surplus for the welfare of all people in society. But wasteful technology simply promotes greed and devastates the environment. Unfortunately, Buddhadasa does not indicate what is an appropriate use of resources beyond the limits of necessity. More importantly, he does not propose any measurement for the fair distribution of the surplus among various sectors of society besides the personal voluntary charity of the rich. [A: In the Tipitaka, it is the individual who is part of society and if everyone, not only the rich, exercises moderation in all manners not only in consumption of necessities, society would be just as ‘moderate’ since its members are thus oriented.]

 E. Dhammic Socialism and Democracy
 As Buddhadasa defines it, “True politics is a struggle against misunderstanding,  wrongview, craving after defilements and the like.”42 All over the world politics has become a means to take advantage of others, and politicians speak only for their own advantage. This, according to Buddhadasa, poisons the real meaning of politics (Thai: kara-muang ‘making a town’.) [A: My definition: garnmuang = affairs of the country] He suggests that, “We need to see politics as a form of practical morality... when politics is seen as a form of morality, it can help the world.”43 Buddhadasa argues that, politics is a moral matter. For a political system to be moral it must be consistent with the truth or the essence of nature (the sacca of dhammajati). A moral political system embodies dhamma, whereas a political system not based in morality is dishonest, destructive and inconsistent with the essence or fundamental truth of Nature.44

 Buddhadasa links the terms “politics,” “socialism,” and “religion” together. [A: That is, of course, his prerogative.  In my opinion, it might have been better to invent new terms for this kind of thought rather than give new meanings to the dhamma vocabulary used in the Theravada Tipitaka.] The word “politics” in its root meaning, according to Buddhadasa, can be defined simply as “concerning many people or things.” Politics is a moral system based on social cooperation to solve the problems that arise from an increasing number of people living together. It is a strategy for addressing social problems. In this meaning of politics, argues Buddhadasa, “socialism” is a more moral political system than any other since it concerns social cooperation and the well-being of the whole society. In this sense, socialism is a system which brings about balance (prakati) in society. Buddhadasa defines “religion” (sasana) as the most perfect state of morality. Since a political system should be essentially a system of morality, politics and religion have an essential relationship and share a common ground. As Buddhadasa understands it,

The study of society, the “social sciences” (sangham-sastra), should be seen as basically a moral enterprise. The term sastra originally meant that which is sharp, used for cutting... When sastra is applied to society as sangham-sastra (social sciences) we can see that it means something sharp which will cut through the problems of society whether political, economic or social. Politics, as one of the social sciences, can be seen as a method of cutting through social problems.45
Again, Buddhadasa points out:

the “social sciences” (sastra-sangham) is fundamentally ethical in nature for it proposes to “cut through” the problems of society in all its facets in order to bring about a natural harmony and balance among the parts. We need to see politics as a form of practical morality, not morality in the philosophical sense.46

 Concerning the political institution of “democracy,” Buddhadasa maintains that democracy, on the one hand, can be a means of taking advantage of and destroying others. On the other hand, it can be an instrument to create peace. “The term is used by both capitalists and the proletariat against one another. Capitalists use it to defend their acquisition of wealth and property, while the proletariat use it to deprive them of it.”47 In his own terms, Buddhadasa approaches “democracy” from two perspectives. From a social perspective, democracy increases the likelihood for economic prosperity, individual freedom and human rights. But from a spiritual perspective, individual rights and freedom for people governed by defilements (kilesa) are the rights and freedom to indulge themselves in material goods. In this sense, democracy leads to consumerism, and consumerism inevitably destroys the Buddhist teaching of the welfare of all. [A: Actually Buddhism separates secular and religious affairs, otherwise the Buddha would not have left his inherited throne. Apparently Buddhadasa doesn’t agree with this separation and prefers to incorporate politics and Buddhism.  His theories seem to be full of holes since he could not reconcile the two as one is spiritual and the other is secular life.]

 Buddhadasa classifies democracy into two categories: “liberal democracy” and “dhammic socialist democracy.” Liberal democracy is the type of democracy known in the West that promotes, at least in words and pledges, equality, rights, and freedom for each individual in the society. It promotes material wealth and consumerism which, according to Buddhadasa, never satisfy the common people’s greed (tanha), and it also devastates natural resources and the world’s ecology. Buddhadasa criticizes it saying:
Liberal democracy, above all, upholds the ideal of freedom (saeri). But the freedom it upholds is so ambiguous that it seems always to be controlled by the power of human defilements (kilesa). Though the ideal of freedom is beautifully portrayed in the philosophy of liberal democracy, it is difficult to put into practice. [A: I think the Thais of old did just fine, like the times of Sukhothai as in the carved stone, Kraii krai kaah maah kaah etc.  [Those who wish to trade in horses do so…] But this free trade was under the protection of the absolute monarch of the day, just like in the Buddha’s time. Actually it was neither under socialism nor capitalism, to be precise, but a just monarchy.] The liberal philosophy or ideology of freedom does not have the power to resist the strength of human defilements. The ambiguity of the meaning of liberal democracy promotes the idea that anything one wants to do is all right... [A: Not true. In those days anyone wishing to seek justice could come and ring a bell by the castle, and state his case publicly before the King himself.] We must accept the fact that we all have defilements. That would be true even if all the people of the world were joined together. [A: They were, but under the rule of a great king.]  Liberal democracy cannot deal effectively with this fact.48
Buddhadasa argues that “freedom” or “free democracy” in the Western sense is an individual matter which shifts the focus from social benefits to individual interests. An emphasis on personal freedom for individuals ruled by defilement or greed (kilesa) goes against the fundamental meaning of politics which is concerned with the good of the whole. Buddhadasa maintains that a political system should be concerned with the well?being of the whole society as well as the issue of individual defilements. Any political system that does not emphasize the benefit of society as a whole is an immoral system.

 Dhammic socialist democracy, in contrast to liberal democracy, promotes loving-kindness and compassion (metta-karuna) among people in a given society. According to Buddhadasa, all the material wealth produced in the dhammic socialist economy would be fairly distributed through the spirit of sharing and cooperation.  He argues that the Buddhist spirit of giving (dana) would enrich people’s spiritual wealth and reduce material consumerism, which is destructive to the world’s environment. Buddhadasa maintains that:
A more controlled form of democracy which is better able to cope with human defilement is socialism (sangham-niyama) which is opposed to the ideal of the individual freedom of liberalism. Socialism focuses on social utility, and the examination and correction of social problems... Dhammic socialism can save the world from what appears to be its self-destructive course... Worldly freedom which characterizes liberal democracy has a dangerous flaw, i.e., it fails to account adequately for kilesa or defilements. It contrasts with socialism in the most complete sense, “dhammic socialism” or socialism rooted in dhamma.49
Buddhadasa advocates a dhammic socialist form of democracy, not a democracy of individualism which, as he sees it, fosters self-centeredness. He criticizes constitutional forms of democratic government which allow individuals to accumulate vast amounts of material wealth at the expense of the rest of the society. A dhammic socialist democracy, he argues, would put the needs of society as a whole first; individuals could not appropriate excessive amounts of wealth for themselves. A dhammic socialist democracy would adhere to the principle of natural balance, thereby respecting the rights of all beings.50

 Buddhadasa’s idea of democracy is in vivid contrast to Western conceptions of democracy. Whereas Buddhadasa promotes a fair distribution of wealth through the personal Buddhist practice of loving-kindness and giving, Western thinkers would argue that a fair distribution of income could be achieved only through law and democratic political institutions. John Locke, one of the greatest spokesmen for political liberty, maintains that man is born with perfect freedom and all the rights and privileges of the law of nature and is equal to any other man, or number of men. In Locke’s terms, man by nature has the power not only to preserve his property--his life, liberty, and estate--against the injuries and attempted incursions of other men, but to judge and punish infractions of that law by others. Here, his philosophy may be a justification for the order of society at that time. When men formed a society, he argues, every one of its members surrendered his natural rights to the community. Those who are united into one body and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another. Locke writes,
Men being...by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way, whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it... When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.51

 Similar to Adam Smith’s argument in the field of economics, Locke argues in the field of politics that men surrendered the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature to society, to be disposed of by the authorized legislative powers as the good of society shall require, only with an intention to better preserve themselves, their liberty and property. Here, we find John Locke taking a position in opposition to Buddhadasa. Buddhadasa does not trust any political system or institution, but instead, he believes in personal ethical practice of reducing each individual’s greed (kilesa) for the good of the society. John Locke, on the other hand, believes in the rule of law, checks and balances of power to guarantee everyone’s right, equality, and liberty, and thus the good of the society.52 Once again Buddhadasa proposes an individualistic rather than a structural or systematic solution to a problem.  [A: Here Buddhadasa is in agreement with the Buddhist teachings, since society is composed of individuals, the individual could change society.  Therefore, if everyone or the majority/the majority leader at least have less greed, the community would also be less greedy.]

 F. Dhammic Socialism and the Role of Leadership
 Buddhadasa proposes that in a dhammic socialist society a just government could be obtained by having moral rulers who care for the welfare of the people rather than for themselves. Buddhadasa portrays the ideal leader of a dhammic socialist country as dhammaraja, a leader with the “ten royal virtues” (dasarajadhamma). He bases his theory of the emergence of a political leader on the Pali scriptures:

According to the Pali scriptures it became necessary to extend natural socialism to the political foundations of the community when oppression in the community became intolerable. People saw fit to invest a particularly capable, just leader with their trust and power. This leader or raja would govern in such a way that no one could oppress anyone else and the community would thus enjoy contentment (Thai: po-cai). Indeed, the word raja actually means contentment. Socialism as a political system, then, is truly socialistic in so far as its leaders secure the contentment of the entire community.53

 Buddhadasa further clarifies his theory of the emergence of political leadership by referring to a legend from the Agga––a suttanta. According to this legend, in the olden days when people lived in the forests and jungles without “culture” as we know it today, they all had sufficient resources to meet their needs and they lived in peace. This original socialistic condition prevailed until they began to hoard, steal and quarrel, being incited by their greed (kilesa). People took advantage of one another causing widespread trouble. King Sammadiraja--the legendary first king in the world--appeared to bring peace and order. He was a strong, clever, and righteous leader who brought contentment to the people. He prevented quarrels, instructed the people, punished wrongdoers, and rewarded those who were good and righteous.54 This seems to be the basic model of political leadership for Buddhadasa. Such leaders strictly observe the ten royal virtues, the Buddhist ethical principles of leadership. The ten royal virtues as given in the Jataka text are as follows:
 1. Dana (liberality, generosity, charity). The ruler should not have craving and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the welfare of the people.
 2. Sila (a high moral character). He should never destroy life, cheat, steal and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, and take intoxicating drinks. That is, he must at least observe the Five Precepts of the layman.
 3. Pariccaga (sacrificing everything for the good of the people). He must be prepared to give up all personal comfort, name and fame, and even his life, in the interest of the people.
 4. Ajjava (honesty and integrity). He must be free from fear or favour in the discharge of his duties, must be sincere in his intentions, and must not deceive the public.
 5. Maddava (kindness and gentleness). He must possess a genial temperament.
 6. Tapa (austerity in habits). He must lead a simple life, and should not indulge in a life of luxury. He must have self-control.
 7. Akkadha (freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity). He should bear no grudge against anybody.
 8. Avihimsa (non-violence), which means not only that he should harm nobody, but also that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.
 9. Khanti (patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding). He must be able to bear hardships, difficulties and insults without losing his temper.
 10. Avirodha (non-opposition, non-obstruction), that is to say that he should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct any measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. In other words he should rule in harmony with his people.55
 The character of the ruler is the crucial factor in Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialism. If a good person becomes the ruler, then the whole system of dhammic socialism will be good. On the other hand, a bad ruler will produce an unacceptable type of socialism. Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialist state depends almost exclusively on the virtues, the responsiblities, and the decisions of its leadership. Buddhadasa cites a number of legendary and historical kings as the exemplary righteous rulers such as King Sammadiraja (the legendary first king in the world), King Asoka of India,  and some Thai kings of the Sukhothai and Ayutthaya periods. Kingship based on the ten royal virtues is, according to Buddhadasa, a pure form of socialistic leadership. He maintains that,
The best example is King Asoka... He purified the sangha by wiping out the heretics, and he insisted on right behavior on the part of all classes of people... He was a gentle person who acted for the good of the whole society. He constructed wells and assembly halls, and had various kinds of fruit trees planted for the benefit of all. He was “dictatorial” in the sense that if his subjects did not do these public works as commanded, they were punished.56
Again, he argues that:

Rama Khamhaeng [a king in the Sukhothai period] ruled socialistically, looking after his people the way a father and mother look after their children. Such a system should be revived today.57
This model might have worked well for some kingdoms in the remote past, but for a highly structured and complex society today, checks and balances on power are required for social justice. [A: On the contrary, any structure can be used to benefit those in power, as we can see in today’s society.  It is still the individual who is in power whether they take advantage of their position to benefit the country or their own/their associates’ personal gains.]

 The question to be raised here is about the idea of the “common good.” Who decides what the common good is? In all contemporary societies there are tough moral questions involving the common good, such as the abortion debate. In the case of Asoka, it may be easy to look back and say that what he did was for the common good and therefore the punishments he imposed on those who refused to work for that goal were justified. Because none of us were there to experience Asoka’s rule, we can idealize it. It is much easier to determine a generalized common good in retrospect than during the time the decisions are being made. In contrast to most Western thinkers, Buddhadasa’s approach lacks the perspective of a more structurally advanced model of society and its leadership. [A: To disagree with ‘western thinkers’ doesn’t necessarily mean that he is wrong.] For Buddhadasa claims,

If a monarch rules with tyranny, of course such governments should be done away with. If, however, the monarch fulfills the Ten Royal Virtues, then his rule will embody the principles of socialism and bring about contentment in society. Under such rule there would be no capitalist oppressors or division of labor according to wealth and power; there would be no underclass of angry laborers resentful at being oppressed and at not having the power to accumulate wealth for themselves. A truly socialistic government would embody the characteristics of dhamma. It would not allow for class distinctions based on wealth. Nor would it permit anyone to accumulate private wealth at the expense of others.58 [A: If this is his definition of socialism then it is not wrong, but rather a return to the model of good government in the Theravada Tipitaka.  Good application of the ten virtues would always make good policies, no matter how complex the governing process.  The author of this article seems not to recognize the virtue of good governance as outlined in the Buddhist teachings in this area. This also has nothing to do with the other faulty reasoning raised by Buddhadasa, but ‘the Ten Royal Virtues’ are taught in the Tipitaka proper and has always been the heart of good exercise of power no matter how complex or modern the society.]
Louis Gabaude comments that Buddhadasa’s vocabulary is problematic: he uses common words but with his own special meaning. Gabaude argues that Buddhadasa’s model of rulership is unrealistic in the modern world:
“Socialism,” “democracy,” “dictatorship” have a common meaning affected by the historical implementations of their ideals. They refer not only to a precise set of ideas but to actual experiences. Buddhadasa’s new sets refer only to principles, to ideas and to dreams. As for experiences or facts, a Jataka King, a 3rd century B.C. ruler like Asoka, or a 13th century A.D. Sukhothai ruler, Ramakamheng, can hardly be realistic models for ruling our complex societies and our independent citizens.59 [A: To western thinkers, this may be idealistic but Thai kings have used this with great success, especially our present king.]

 The democratic process is a time-consuming one, often at the expense of the community’s good. Hence, Buddhadasa adds the concept of dictatorship, not in the sense of a tyrant, but in the sense of a protector of the common good. As Buddhadasa understands it, the term “dictatorship” (Thai: phadetkan) has two meanings. As a political ideology like those found in the authoritarianism of a military dictatorship, it is certainly undesirable. But as a means of leading to a desirable goal, it means to handle things expeditiously. Buddhadasa’s notion of “dictatorial”--meaning to obtain a desirable goal, especially peace and justice in the society--developed at a time of social turmoil during the 1973-1976 period of political unrest in Thailand. During that period, it seemed that democracy could not really solve the problems facing the Thai people, who were ideologically divided between the extremes of right and left. To be able to bring peace and justice to Thai society, Buddhadasa argued that “dictatorial” meant the exercise of virtue and wisdom (dhammaraja) to end the hatred and turmoil, and to lead society to peace and order. Buddhadasa explains “dictatorial” as a means to obtain peace and justice in dhammic socialism thusly:

Let us examine a very controversial notion, “dictatorial democracy” (prajadhipatai-phadetjakara). We tend to shy away from the word, “dictatorship,” because we are so infatuated with liberalism (saeri-niyama)...

 To sum up, there are various forms of democracy such as liberal democracy and socialist democracy. The ideal form is dhammic socialist democracy in which “dictatorial” means are used to expedite solutions to social problems. We must not be misled by the usual associations of the word, “dictatorial.” Dictatorship in the sense of tyranny has no place in dhammic socialism. If dictatorial methods are consistent with dhamma, they will help expedite moral solutions to social problems, and should be used to the fullest extent. Our own country is currently in great turmoil, and we seem to have no clear vision of where we are headed. If we were more “dictatorial” in a dhammic way, we would be able to solve our problems quickly.60  [A: Socialism also failed in other countries, but at the time Buddhadasa said the above, Russia has not yet fallen apart.  In other words, the type of Buddhist socialism Buddhadasa was talking about, which is more of the kind of altruistic governance taught in the Tipitaka, would work under any name, even without association with any school of modern western thought.]

 Generally speaking, the notion of a dictatorial dhammic socialist ruler in Buddhadasa’s thought is problematic because it is based almost exclusively on the personal “moral” qualities of the ruler. He seems to believe that with the ten royal virtues, the “dictator” would not go astray. Unfortunately, the justification of forcing people to do things for the common good comes frighteningly close to the old idea that the ends justify the means. One person is empowered to define the common good and then enforce it. This is a questionable approach to politics because it could potentially provide the opportunity for corruption and the misuse of power due to human fallibility. [A: It may be frightening, but it is actually the case in many societies and countries, all over the world.  One should not think the world is ideally run, by the majority; that is being unrealistic. Look at Saddam and his clique who ran a whole country into the ground.] Furthermore, one may ask these questions: Does personal morality guarantee political ability and efficient rule? [A: What about the defunct Russian Socialist government supposedly run by the majority, with voting systems etc.? There can be abuse of power of the group who run the country as well.]  Who will check the virtues of the ruler? [A: or group/governing power of rulers?] Who will decide that he is lacking those virtues? When should he quit? And what if he is not willing to quit? And what about the other sub-powers in the society itself?61 Louis Gabaude has raised these questions and points to the European experience in discussing the question of dictatorship:

Buddhadasa understands that, lacking of a common ideal, dictatorial power is needed to rule society according to the Dhamma. The problem is to define what actually, precisely, fits with the Dhamma and what does not. He trusts the dictator to decide, in a rather Manichaean way, what and who should be “dhammic” and what and who should not. Europeans still remember that, between the two World Wars, joint refusal of liberal democracy and communism gave all dictatorial powers to a “Caudillo,” an “Il Duce” and a “Fuhrer” who were even supported sometimes by some religious groups in the very name of social order, morals, and efficiency.62 [A: How is it different in the Russian socialist government before Russia fell apart?]
Like many of Buddhadasa’s supporters among progressive Thai Buddhists, Sulak Sivaraksa is a strong proponent of democratic processes in government who finds it difficult to accept Buddhadasa’s claims about the desirability of a dictatorial form of Buddhist government. Sulak Sivaraksa comments:
I think a weak point of Buddhadasa lies in this matter of “dictator,” because dictators never possess dhamma, and it’s like this everywhere because we abandon ourselves to having dictators. Even the abbots at almost every temple are dictators, including Buddhadasa as well.63 [A: What about Por Khun Ram, who was an absolute monarch, whom Buddhadasa considers an ideal ‘socialist’ ruler, with the Ten Royal Virtues?]

 Buddhadasa sums up his political position saying, “I favor a Buddhist socialist democracy which is composed of dhamma and managed by a ‘dictator’ whose character exemplifies the ten royal virtues (dasarajadhamma),”64 and “In particular, small countries like Thailand should have democracy in the form of a dictatorial dhammic socialism.”65 In discussing these views, Louis Gabaude further points out how unrealistic the political position taken by Buddhadasa is in terms of the actual world, observing that Buddhadasa’s political thought is not convincing because no one can see how the three components of his utopian regime--dictatorship, dhamma, and socialism--could possibly be implemented at the same time in modern Thai society as it is.66 [A: It worked pretty well before and even today our King uses these principles as far as he is able in this limited monarchy system Thailand is using at the moment, with great success.  Some western governments should apply it as well; as a principal service to their people instead of war mongering and seeking economical gain for those in power.  Indeed countries, for example the Scandinavian ones who apply good governance for the sake of their people are very successful examples of their form of altruistic socialism today.  Appropriately enough they are mainly countries with the limited monarchy system or what Buddhadasa might call, Buddhist socialism.]

 Donald Swearer maintains that Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialism has three basic principles: Firstly, the principle of the good of the whole deals with political, economic, and social structures. Secondly, the principle of restraint and generosity governs individual behavior. And thirdly, the principle of respect and loving-kindness prescribes the right attitude toward all forms of life.67 He argues that Buddhadasa’s vision serves as a critique of both capitalism and communism and provides the basic principles for a political philosophy with the potential to help guide Buddhist Thailand to a more just and equitable social, political and economic order.68 [A: Anything based on the Theravada Tipitaka is generally timeless and beneficial, anyone with proof of the contrary could please send in their evidences to the webmaster [Webmaster@wfb-hq.org]]

 Louis Gabaude takes a very different view. In developing his critique of Buddhadasa’s proposed political regime, he argues that Buddhadasa is assigning all the good to his dictatorial dhammic socialism. At the same time, he is assigning all the evil equally to liberal democracy and communism. Gabaude points out that the only difference is that liberal democracy and communism are real, actual regimes, while dictatorial dhammic socialism is a projection or mental construction.69 [A: We who live in Thailand should know more about this than he does, that is true.]

 Buddhadasa’s dictatorial dhammic socialist leadership reminds one of the philosopher king in the Republic of Plato. In his socialist republic, Plato categorizes people into three classes: philosopher king(s), warriors, and merchants (including all kinds of laborers). The philosopher king is the ruler who is the most virtuous and has the most wisdom. Plato’s philosopher king is similar to a ruler with the ten royal virtues in Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialism. Plato’s republic, however, was criticized by his famous disciple, Aristotle, who advocates more democratic forms of government. In his fourth book of the Politics, after describing the four principal forms of government as monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and aristocracy, Aristotle adds: “But there is a fifth... Constitutional government may be described generally as a fusion of oligarchy and democracy, but the term is usually applied to the forms of government which incline towards democracy.”70 Aristotle’s constitutional government serves as a more democratic contrast to the leadership of both Plato’s republic and Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialism.

 A more modern critique of the hierarchy of power explicit in Buddhadasa’s dictatorial dhammic socialism comes from the contemporary French philosopher Michel Foucault. In his book, Power/Knowledge, Foucault argues that the universal or superstructural theory of power has created problems in human civilization. As Foucault points out,
Where Soviet socialist power was in question, its opponents called it totalitarianism; power in Western capitalism was denounced by the Marxists as class domination; but the mechanics of power in themselves were never analysed.71

What we need, argues Foucault, is not a political philosophy that is erected around the problem of sovereignty, or around the mechanism of law and prohibition, but a political theory that advocates the elimination of central power. Foucault analyzes the mechanics of power as something which circulates, or something which only functions in the form of a chain. It is never localized here or there, never in anybody’s hands. Power is exercised through a net-like organization. It is concrete power which every individual holds, existing only in action. Individuals are the vehicles of power and the individual is an effect of power and the element of its articulation. Foucault concludes that one needs to investigate historically, and beginning from the lowest level, how mechanisms of power have been able to function. By his new theory of power, Foucault has challenged not only a hierarchical structure of power such as that of a virtuous dictatorial ruler in Buddhadasa’s dhammic socialism, but also an institutional democratic structure of power. The best form of government for Foucault is probably the most decentralized which, being as abstract as Buddhadasa’s conception of dhammic socialism, has yet to be found.
 In conclusion, Buddhadasa’s theory of dhammic socialism represents a particular Buddhist response to rapid social change in a modern Asian state. For an ideal political system and society, Buddhadasa always refers to the “golden age” of the historical past--whether it be a society during the time of the Buddha, King Asoka of India, or the kings of the Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, and Bangkok periods in Thailand. Buddhadasa portrays those ancient societies as full of the spirit of dhammic socialism with the leadership observing the ten royal virtues, people practicing Buddhist ethical principles such as self-restraint (sila and vinaya), loving-kindness (metta-karuna), and giving (dana). As in any traditional society, people in those periods might have had more intimate social relations and have followed religious disciplines more strictly. But Buddhadasa forgets the historical fact that those societies contained various forms of social oppression such as slavery, annual indentureship, an inhumane and arbitrary legal system, and many assassinations in the recurring power struggles for the throne. Buddhadasa’s theory of dhammic socialism reflects his view of a Buddhist Utopia. As a political program, it fails to address realistically contemporary political, economic, and social issues facing Thailand today. The importance of Buddhadasa’s political thought lies in the fact that dhammic socialism serves as an indigenous traditional critique of modern economic and political theories as well as the construction of moral guidelines to create a new political philosophy. Buddhadasa’s greatest contribution lies in his theory of the state of nature which provides a philosophical agenda for solving the environmental and ecological crises facing the world today. As a leading reformist Buddhist figure, Buddhadasa has laid a religious foundation for contemporary Thai thinkers to search for a more realistic political ideology which would link traditional Thai culture to the modern problems under the influence of the global market economy.

By Dr. Tavivat Puntarigvivat

[A: Buddhadasa is not the most popular of monks in Thailand and his logic and historical evidences may have errors as this critique has extensively pointed out, especially through western views quoted here. However, when he quoted the Tipitaka, whether he called the Ten Royal Virtues socialism or whatever name he chose, he was quoting a tried and true source, of good governance as well as the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.  This has been and is being applied by the King and the Queen of Thailand which is why they and Princess Sirindhorn are the most popular people among the grassroots as well as the majority of the Thai population, at present.  Governments come and go during their majesties’ reign, with varying popularity, but proof of the success of the Ten Royal Virtues are before our eyes at present, and before all Thai eyes, and even some western ones; indeed before the world.]

Analyst:
Amara Chayabongse,
Webmaster, WFB-HQ.org
February 2nd, 2549[2006]
 

616 Benjasiri Park, Soi Medhinivet, Sukhumvit 24,      BANGKOK 10110,   Thailand.      Tel. (662) 6611284 - 87       Fax. (662) 6610555