Introduction

Introduction to Buddhist Political theories

• Digha Nikaya is a collection of dialogues of mostly of

Gautama himself.

There are 180 controversial dialogues –

• First dialogue is Brahmajala – the perfect net

• 62 hypothesis and 4 great nikayas or collections. First 2

nikayas are Digha

and Majjhima, longer and shorter.

• Buddha is himself principle interlocutor in conversation with

his principle

disciples.

• Agganna Sutta is number 27 of Dighanikaya.

Philosophical concepts of Buddhism

• There are 3 great traditions of Buddhist thought –

1. Thervada - oldest early Buddhism – Sri lanka, Burma,

Thailand &

Cambodia (meditation):
Of the three Schools or Traditions of Buddhism, Theravada, the oldest

of these is associated with Early Buddhism (Southern Buddhism), and is found

mainly in Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia and Thailand. The modes of practice

of this tradition give primacy to self-transformation and emphasise the practice

of meditation, in attaining liberation or salvation through one’s own effort.

2. Mahayana – Eastern originates in India and spreads to

China,

Vietnam, Korea and Japan (Lotus sutra): Mahayana tradition (Eastern

Buddhism), though originating in India, exists

mainly in countries extending from China, Vietnam and Korea to Japan and

documented in texts such as the Lotus Sutta. The Mahayana, unlike the

Theravada tradition is more communal by virtue of its emphasis on social

transformation and social activism.

3. Vajrayana – Believes in esoteric healing and social

transformation,

found in Tibet, Mongolia, Nepal and Bhutan: The third dominant

School or Tradition of

Vajrayana (Northern or Tibetan Buddhism) shares much in common with the

other two Traditions, and is associated mainly with Tibet, Nepal, Butan,

Mongolia, and parts of China.

• 3 fundamental principles of phenomenal world

1. Annica – impermanence

2. Annata – NO self
3. Dukha - Suffering
Whilst there are marked variations, of theory and practice, between and

within different forms of Buddhism, in their understanding of Buddhism as a

religious system, there remains a solid core common to all the doctrinal

renderings of Buddhism (Gethin 1998). Conceptually this common core is

enshrined in the three signata or fundamental axiomatic principles of the

phenomenal world—anicca, anatta, dukkha (impermanence, no self, and

suffering) and the Four Noble Truths:

• There are 3 great traditions of Buddhist thought : Four Noble

Truths:

1. Existential fact of suffering

2. Its cause

3. Its cessation

4. Path leading to its cessation

Context of AS

Agrarian social order:

Ernest Gellner mentioned three min historical stages of

evolution of mankind:

i. Hunter-gatherers

ii. Agrarian Society

iii. Industrial Society

These stages are defined in relation to

o The means or their absence of producing, accumulating and

storing food and

wealth;

o The forms of coercion and legitimation which accompany

them;

o (in the second and third stage) to the social distribution and
varieties of

cognition

Indian society during 5th

– 4th Centuries B.C.:

Some things that gellner says about the agrarian stage is plausible and proves that th 2nd stage
could be the background to the AS.

Towns and small scale polities

The most likely time for the buddha and early buddhism is the 5 th and 4th
centuries BC. There are three main points in what follows:

o Brahmanism was more strongly established the countryside

than in the rising

urban centres, where a competing plurality of ideologies were

emerging;

o These urban centres, which arose from and encouraged a

food surplus, were

the market, military and administrative centres of small scale

politics and not

the metropolitan capitals of large empires;

o These polities were ruled by oligarchies and gradually

turned to monarchies, at the time of the buddha himself and
immediately thereafter. The society apparently presupposed
by AS fits just this picture.

At the time of Gautama, 2 types of government – Republican

and

Monarchical – constant competition with each other.

Regular assemblies within tribal groups known as sanghas,

that is
government by discussion, main feature of republican
government – They

collapsed after Buddha’s, middle of 5th century

Sanghas are intermediate stage between collectivism of

popular tribal

assembly and individualism of Monarchical state

• Monarchy flourished in 3 contexts – Individualism,

urbanisation & density

of population

Competing heirachical models

Richard bughart’s ‘Heirarchical Models of the Hindu Social System’

claims that kings, brahmins, and ascetics each produced ideologies
of the social world which heirachised it, and naturally, placed
themselves at the top of whatever value-scale the model embodied.
The brahmanical heirarchy is expressed in terms of ‘ritual purity’
and ‘the sacrificial body of brahma’. ascetic heirarchy is expressed
in terms of ‘the cycle of confused wanderings, that is, rebirth’.
kingly heirarchy is expressed in terms of a ‘tenurial heirarchy which
was derived from [the king’s] lordship ober the land, a lordship
construed as a divine marriage between god-kings and the earth.
Buddhism and early kingship

Relations between monarchy and early

kingship/buddhish approach to early kingship

 Monarchy was the dominant political institution of the

Buddha's time. The Enlightened One was on very cordial terms

with some of the leading monarchs of the times whose interest

and patronage Early Buddhism appreciated a great deal. Many a

rule of the Vinaya code was discreetly amended in deference

to

the convenience of kings such as Bimbisara and Pasendi, the

Kosalan. And quite a few scions of royal families joined the

order of monks and nuns and played a leading part in the

propagation of the creed during its early critical years

 The Buddha came from a world of tribal oligarchs and had

nostalgic sympathies for that form of organization whose spirit

he attempted to infuse into the structure of his own samgha.

This world, however, was in a state of disintegration, and his

advice to the Vajjians, threatened as they were by the expanist

parricide Ajatasattu,2 almost sounds like a requiem

for the tribal republics of the 5th century B.C. India.

Whatever his personal choice in the matter of forms

of political organization the Buddha was realist enough

to recognize that monarchy had come to stay and, as

far as he could see into the future, would remain the

dominant form of political organization. He and the

Early Buddhists, therefore, came to terms with the

institution of monarchy and proceeded to formulate

their own political philosophy in an endeavour to influence its
development and final form.

 The Early Buddhist philosophy of kingship is a

compound of three distinct attitudes.

- On the one han~

the early Buddhists betray feelings of disquiet bordering

on fear about the nature and functions of kingship as

it existed in their times.

- On the other hand, they see no alternative to it and declare it as
absolutely

essential to prevent humanity lapsing into a state of

anarchy.

- Finally, confronted with the fact of kingship

and its absolute necessity for orderly human existence,

they attempt to tame absolute political power by infusing into

it a spirit of higher morality.

characteristic of kingship

- The first and, perhaps the most isportant, characteristic

of kingship that the Early Buddhist texts p0int out

is its overwhelming power. In its destructive aspects

royal power is often compared to the calamitous nature of a

conflagration or a flood.s It was cften exercized

in an arbitrary fashion resulting in whimsical violence and

expropriation6 of people's property.

- Moreover the kings are always greedy whatever the extent

of their own oppulence and are always searchirg for

pretexts for the accumulation of more wealth or the

acquisition of more territory.

- They are generally

intolerant of dissent from their own vicws and their
wayward wrath often results in the death or deportation

of some of their subjects.

- Finally the fear of their

tyranny is so constant and great that some people are

compelled to flee to the wilds or repair to the sanctuary of a

monastic oruer for their own safety

-However undesirable the propensities of some of

the kings may be, kingship as an institution was

considered absolutely essentia1 to orderly human life.

Theory of origin of state

(from ruchi)
Theory of ‘Great Elect’ (Mahasammat)

i. Description of primeval conditions: inhabited by ‘being

made of mind’,

feeding on rapture (bliss, enthusiasm, carried away in spirit),

self-luminous

(full of light) traversing the air, continuing in glory; only

subtle body/mind;

emancipating person; no distinction of sex; => state of soul

and spirit
ii. Introduction of element of water: greedy disposition;
decline of self

luminance; manifestation of the sun, the moon, appearance of

stars, night,

day, months, seasons, years etc.

iii. Appearance of soil & rice: set boundaries (Private

Property); appearance of

evil & immoral customs; one’s notion of one-self; pride in

beauty and

conceit; Sex differences; people divided on rice-fields;

iv. Stealing appeared: punishment for crime and defiance of

rules

v. People agitated due to evils;

‘Those beings went to the being among them who was the
handsomest, the

best favoured, the most attractive, the most capable and said to
him: come

now, good being, be indignant, censure that which should

rightly be
censured, banish him who deserves to be banished. And we
will contribute

to thee a proportion of our rice.’ (Dialogues of Buddha 88)

‘(O king) thou who are a (mere) servant of the multitude and
who receives

the sixth part (of the produce) as thine wages.’ (U.N. Ghoshal)

He consented to do so and was given a portion of rice.

 He was called Mahasammata, because he was chosen by

the whole people.
 He was named Khattiya because of being overlord
(ahdipati) of fields

(khetta).By making the king master of the farms, there is

implicit acceptance of the state’s control, if not ownership of
all forms of property within the realm though this right is
inexorably linked with dhamma (righteousness), conceivably
an antidote against any exproprietary inherent in the state.

 He was also called Raja as he charmed others by nor m

or pleases the people with dhamma. Dhamma is now
introduced as a basic

constituent of the state

(from gokhale)
Origin of kingship is discussed in Digghanikaya and Mahavastu • Monarchy
was both elective and contractual. • Although the contract theory of the
origin of the state is anticipated by early Brahmanical literature, the
first clear and developed exposition is to be found in the Digghanikaya

The Early Buddhists had their own theory of the origin

of the state. According to this theory in the very

beginning, in the pristine state of humanity, all

men were virtuous. Each respected the rights of others

and fulfilled his own obligations conscientiously.

There was no theft, there was no lying or cheating and

there was no violence. In such an idyllic condition

the state was superfluous as a regulatory agency and

hence did not exist.

Shows new realm of social investigation, reflecting that when

social stratifications were absent, the state of existence was of
great happiness. The first stage, when being were ‘made of
mind’ depicts the influence of

traditional Hindu psychology.

But later, we are told, there

was a fall in standard of human behaviour. Untruth,

deceit, theft and violence ruled t~e lives of men as

every man's hand was against his fellow beings and

might prevailed over right. This was the state of

anarchy, the state of matsyanyaya in Kautalyan par~

lence. The law of the jungle made life impossible

and humans then decided to elect 9ne among them to

be the king and entrust to him the task of enforcing

law and order. Thus was created the first king called

"acclaimed by the many"- rnahasamrnata. In return for

his labours towards the establishment of law and order,

justice and harmony, the king was paid one-sixth of

Produce of each of the subjects. The establishment of

kingship then ended the anarcgy in which society had
falledn and orderlyt social life became possible.
Linga / Sukshma Sarira/ Subtle body is individual’s real
personality and accompanies soul in its transmigration.

Denotes the whole chain of causation: Ignorance => Samskara

(conformation) => Consciousness => Name and Form => 6

Provinces

(senses) eye, ear, nose, tongue, body/ touch, mind => Contact
=> Sensation

=> thirst / desire => attachment => becoming => birth => Old
age / Death /
Grief / Lamentation / Suffering / Dejection / Despair =>
Whole mass of suffering. Once ignorance dispelled, individual
was able to see things as they really are

Implications of this origin theory

What is emphasized in this concept of kingship was ‘a democratic

conception of state and law’ (Jayatilleke 1967) based on the principle of

equality.

This is also based on the

assumption of the equality of man and that the king is only primus inter

pares, and exercises authority only by virtue of the social contract.

Origin of State as a quasi-contractual Arrangement under

which the king agrees to perform specific functions on behalf
of the people in return for certain rights conferred on him,
including taxation;

 The view of kingship is not that of a ‘ universal emperor’,

the cakkavatti but is of the ‘ Great Appointee’
 Basis of kingship involve psychological factors rather
than divine will

‘ Great Elect’ was instituted by people to settle social conflicts

Political authority lies in people who fix for the King (Great
Elect) a portion

of their produce
The contract is a basic condition of organized human society
for in the

absence of such a contract before the birth of the state,

anarchy prevailed. It

is, therefore, existential and neither the subjects nor the state
have any

choice outside it.

The relationship between the state and the subject is a

contractual

obligation in which one commands and the other obeys. The

obligation is

mutual and if one party violates it unilaterally, the other is no

longer

obligated by the terms of that contract.

The contract is symbolized by the institution of taxation,

which is a payment

for specific work

Nature of state and kingship

For the early Buddhists, the state generally means the monarch,
though the

Buddha and many of his disciples came from oligarchic

republics. (Gokhale) The
terms commonly used for the state are rattha (country), rajja
(kingdom) or vrjita

(subjugated territory).

The state arises as a punitive institution charged with the

responsibility of

imposing law and order without which human beings cannot

survive as an

orderly society. The state becomes an agreement between the

government

and the ruled, wherein the ruled transfer a part of their

sovereignty to state

for a specific purpose.

Dialogue do not specify details of Mahasammata / Great Elect

could be king or a republican head.(Buddha himself was from
Sakiya clan with republican polity)

The power of the king was no longer based on any overt or

implied contract but rested on the possessions of certain
tangibles and intangibles. Among the material possessions,
two are commonly mentioned: one is a full treasury
(paripunnakotthagara), another is a large, strong and well
equipped army. These two are naturally related to ocntrol over
territory, the concrete bases of sovereignty.
Buddhist Ideas on the Constituents of the State (Gokhale)

(Do not offer systematized list of constituents of State)

i. The King

ii. The Territory (rattha); Territorial organizations have

sub-divisions:

(a) Villages (gaama)

(b)Market towns (nigama)

(c) Countryside (janaopada)

(d)City (naga ra)

(e) The Frontier (paccanta) (existed only some times)

iii. Ministers and bureaucracy (Amacca and paarisajja)

iv. The Armed Forces (balam) (recommended delicate balance

of forces to deal

with dangers from outside its frontiers and from within,

through rebellion

and banditry.

v. The Treasury (kosakotthagara)

vi. Allies (Anuyutta khattiya and kuddarajano

vii. The People (manussa); to have four different assemblies

(parisas),- one each

for
(a) Khattiyas

(b)Brahmans

(c) Householders (gahapati)

(d)Ascetics (samana)

(Forte / Durga not included in the list, as was done by

Kautilya)

The territory of the state is variously stated as comprising the

capital (rajadhani), towns (nigama), villages (gama),
countryside (janapada), and border areas (paccanta). over all
these, the king had control and the right to tax the perople
resident therein. It was this wealth that enabled a king to
maintain his armed forces, which enabled him to defend his
own position. The army is generally described as four-fold
(caturagni) consisting of the elephant corps, cavalry, the
chariot corps and infantry.

Early buddhist approach to war

The early Buddhists regarded the institution of war as strictly

within the jurisdiction of state (attha and ānā). Buddhist

injunctions against

violence were more often related to the level of individual and

inter-group
relations. The horrors of war were duly recognized, however,
war was not

outlawed. (Gokhale) Perhaps, the Buddhists reconciled their

inability to

influence the conduct of state beyond giving it ethical advice.

Hence, wanted

to keep the horrors of war within reasonable limits. No

evidence to assume

that the Buddha ever advised his contemporary kings to

disband their armies

or to dismantle their swords. Even the Buddhist emperor

Ashoka is not

known to have disbanded his army after Kalinga

The most frequent challenge came from within: Conspiracy

against the

throne and life of the king, robbers and thieves threatening the
life and

property of people; etc.

For all practical purposes, Samgha withdrew itself from

consideration of

war; admission of soldiers was forbidden; talks and stories of

war were

denounced; witnessing army parades was treated as waste of

time.
Notion of Sovereignty

The state is a sovereign entity and its sovereignty is expressed

by a variety of terms

such as ānā, ādhipacca, issariya, vasa and siri. Ānā means

order or command and

implies ability to give orders to all. Ādhipacca signifies

overlordship, the quality of

imposing superiority over others. Issariya, which is also called

vasa, is the quality

of exercising overwhelming influence or control, the capacity

to impose

sovereignty. Siri is splendor, beauty, glory, majesty and

prosperity and is based on

material possessions. Sovereignty connotes total authority, an

ability to reward and

punish, capacity to give orders to all and receive orders from

none.

Seven symbols of Sovereignty

• Unique to Buddhism Sattharatana or 7 constituent elements

of kingship are –

1. Cakkaratana – wheel treasure (Dominion)

2. Hathiratna – Elephant treasure (Control over Dominion)

3. Assaratna – Horse treasure (Control over dominion)

4. Parinayakaratna – Councilor treasure (Control over

dominion)

5. Itthiratna – Woman treasure (Basis of control)

6. Maniratna – Precious gems (Basis of control)

7. Gahapatiratna – people, taxation (Basis of control)

• Features of Buddhist polity –

1. Secular orientation

2. Continuity with Vedic ideas (7 ratnas + Raja)

3. Dichotomy between ideas of actual kingship & normative

kingship

Nature of kingship

The pali texts generally insist that a king be a khattiya

and belong to a family with a hoary lineage. This is in
keeping with the early buddhist view that the khattiyas
are the highest among classes and castes. Nor is a woman
favoured as a ruler. A good king is expected to be
charitable, moral, just, humble, penitent, nonwrathful,
nonviolent, patient, and harmless. In short, the ideal king
should be a preeminently a moral being.

A good king, however, should also subserve the

traditions of attha and dhamma. The terms attha and
dhamma may be rendered, in our present context, as
actions condusive to prosperity anf righteousness.
Dhamma is often equated with sama which may be
translated as impartiality and a sense of justice. In fact
the ideal king is often called dhammiko dhammaraja.

The buddhists, with their antipathy to sacrificial ritual

involving slaughter, naturally cannot be expected to base
the charisma of their ideal king on his performance of
sacrifices. However, they are not averse to using
non-ratiocinative elements in their concept of the royal
charisma. The ideal king is described as a ‘holy’ person,
a person in whom resides some mystic power. The
cakkavatti (universal monarch) has almost all the
characteristics and on death, his funeral is conducted in
the same fashion as that of a buddha.

The charisma of a dead cakkavatti resides in his stupa

and a visit to the stupa is described as an act of merit
which may lead a person to heaven after death.

The duties

of a compassionate ruler, set out in the Discourse entitled Cakkavati

Sihananda or the Universal Monarch, specify ten virtues14 that constitute the

essential elements of the Buddhist ethic and social philosophy. Accordingly,

a king is generous, has his senses under control, ready to make

sacrifices, straightforward in dealings, gentle and kind, able to suffer

for the people’s sake, free from anger and resentment, he is

compassionate to all, tolerant and very approachable.

This Discourse recommends that a ruler fashions his conduct as an

‘enlightened altruist (Jayatilleke 1967: 59) on the grounds of self interest and

expediency.’ These ten virtues which formed the basics of legislation depicts

an ‘ideal type’ characterization of the ‘monarch’ or ‘ruler’ who was expected

to act with a sense of moral righteousness, and for which in return the people

agreed to give the king ‘a portion of rice’ for fulfilling his duties and

obligations

In the absence of constitutional checks and safeguards against the

arbitrary exercise of power, public opinion alone was the only safeguard

against a wicked ruler or tyrant who acts unrighteously. One example cited in

texts of how public opinion operates was that of a king who proposes to

sacrifice his throne rather than allow his son to atone for his transgressions.

However, the people rejected this and demanded that the son be banished

from the kingdom. And the king’s response was to act in accord with ‘the

people’s will.’ In another instance, a Queen who demanded that she be given

absolute authority by her husband, the king, was denied this request on the

grounds that the King was not ‘an absolute Lord.’ This again serves to

underline the fact that the exercise of the power and authority associated with

kingship is constrained by public opinion, the voice of the people.

The duties associated with a monarch denote a highly principled and at

the same time eminently reasonable and sensible way of resolving complex

problems which included guidelines for fashioning acceptable social relations

(Kalupahana1995a; Guruge 2007). Kingship, no doubt, was limited by one’s

capacity to act within the guidelines of the teaching, the dhamma, i.e., the

principles of moral righteousness. Accordingly, the maintenance of the

normative order—the code of righteousness, was seen as a prime requirement

of a good ruler. What made the exercise of power—political power and

authority—legitimate lay in the ability of the person exercising this authority

to act skilfully in striving to uphold the principles of compassion, equity and

justice. These principles were enshrined in the moral code of righteousness,

and were equally applicable to a lay person as well as an administrator—be

he a monarch or lesser official. In this regard, there are many examples in

later Buddhist Mahayana texts such as the Mahavastu, of the specific advice

given to rulers. For instance, the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna15 (circa 150

- 250 CE) in his advice to the Satavahana dynasty enjoins the monarch to

actively support the work of doctors, set up hostels and rest houses, eliminate

high taxes, care for victims of natural disasters and keep profits low (Mishra

2005).

This clearly affirms that the norms of compassionate justice enshrined in

the Buddhist ethic and moral order provides no rational basis for a ruthless culture of greed
and selfishness characteristic of some perverse forms of

individualism
For Buddha, kings were like the weather- inescapable, not always pleasant,
somewhat unpredictable but could not be ignored. • Early Buddhism was well
aware of the dangers of monarchy however anarchy was considered worse

King’s ideal role was to serve his people by ensuring order and prosperity.
• Buddha advised monarchs to avoid military maneuvers, parades and
ceremonies. Instead infused the state/kingship with ‘Higher Morality’.
• Dhamma was the cosmic law higher than mundane kings and emperors.

Considered the “first among equals” i.e. his post was elected. •
Possessed qualities of ‘strength and valour’. • Could not ipso facto
demand taxes. Voluntary gifts and payments were the norm. • Powers were
restricted.

Primary duty was protection of property.

His other duties included: – Protection of population from external

enemies and internally from wrongdoers

He was the upholder of lawdhritvrata. • He too had to abide by Dharma and

uphold it at all times. • His conduct was to be exemplary. The jatakas
remark “When kings are unjust even sugar and salt loose their flavor”.
• The king must serve the people for the taxes paid to him are in lieu
of for the protection expected from him

The king was to observe and possess ‘Dasa Rajdhamma’ (ten virtues of
a king)- charity, high moral character, selfsacrifice, integrity,
gentleness, austerity, non-anger, nonoppression, tolerance and
nondeviation.

The ideal model of Buddhist theory of kingship was Asoka

Ideal Kingdom

The territory, which is without thorns (Akantaka) and

untroubled

(Annuppīla)
 Men are happy and joyous, living in homes with open doors
and playing

peacefully with children in their laps;

Wicked are punished; punishment is to be used to deter the

potential

offenders; king to have absolute powers to banish culprits

from his kingdom

and also to execute the convicted criminals;

Abuse of power by the State

Recognized the constant possibility of power by the state;

Kings described as tyrant, intolerant, arbitrary, autocratic,

greedy, expropriatory

The destruction caused by the wrath of a king is compared to

that by thieves, fire, \

flood, evil spirits or wild animals

Dhamma and State

it is in the concept of dhamma that the buddhist ideas on
kingship find their ultimate conclusion. The cakkavatti is
dhammiko dhammaraja. He is devoted to dhamma, honors it,
is deferential towards iit, worships itm makes it his banner and
treats it as his overlord. The dhamma is equated with justice
(naya) and equity (sama) rectitude and the highest morality.

In this line of reasoning, the state is never an end in itself but

rather a means to an end. As an instrument, it is possessed of
total power that encompasses within its jurisdiction all areas
of human activity. It is an awesome power and it is per se
neither moral nor immoral. But it cannot exist outside of
human beings for it is not just an abstraction or a thought out
construct, it can be exercised only through human agencies.

But power was misused often. Divine retribution as a

punishment for the misuse of power, as a theory of deterrence,
did not appeal to buddhists. For them, the state was not merely
a punitive instrument but primarily an agency for the moral
transformation of man as a political animal. They found in
morality of a higher order the solution to the dilemma of
power.

This higher morality began with the king observing the FIve
commandments. But the ideal king was expected to do much
more than follow the basic precepts. He was expected to
cleanse his mind of all traces of avarice (loba), ill-will (dosa)
and intellectual error (moha). he was expected to cultivate the
virtue of noninjury (avihimsa) and rule without the aid of
force (danda) and weapons of destruction (sattha). his
functions were not restritced to the establishment of orderly,
economic, and political relationships among his subjects but
extended to bring about a moral transformation in the nature
of his subjects. This he was able to do by setting the highest
personal example by living a life of contemplation, purity, and
moral endeavor.

If he fails in these tasks, then his power is weakened and

social disintegration follows. For the kingdom is then
threatened by bandits and lawless elements and there is no
security of life and property. Furthermore, if a king acts
immorally, his actions interefere with the functions of nature,
such as timely rain,and there arise the three dangers of famine,
epidemics, and armed conflicts.

Morality is thus stands not only between anarchy and orderly

human relations, but immorality also leads to a dislocation of
natural functions and catastrophic consequences. If there is no
morality, there can be no state which promises order and
security for life and property. Without morality, even the
progression of the functions of nature is seriously affetcted for
the natural order is upheld by morality. This dhamma is rooted
in equality of moral opportunities and equity in punishments
(sama) (which is another word for justice ie naya). when such
a just and moral state rules, it tends to increase the good and
welfare of the subjects.

Relationship between Buddhism and a well-entrenched and all

powerful

monarchical despotism; and the solution is proposed in the

theory of two equal
spheres of life:

i. The Dhamma

(a) Kings built monasteries for the Samgha and amended

many of their laws,

which otherwise made the Samgha’s activities very difficult.

The

relationship between the state and Buddhism could be realized

through

the fact that Buddhism could not for long remain outside its
society. The

Buddha and his disciples were subjects of the state in the area
they lived

and worked, and accordingly accommodated the demands of

the state by

modifying the Vinaya rules.

(b)Human life comprised of two distinct spheres: the temporal

and the

spiritual. The Human life was also explained by two other

terms: Atta

and Dhamma.

a. Atta is translated as interest advantage, good, blessing,

welfare, profit,

prosperity, well-being, riches and wealth. Initially, it was used

to
mean something that is vital and desirable both in this world
and the

next. Later, it was used to denote affairs of this world,

especially of

organized society. As worldly good, it involves the right to

enjoy

private property and the prerogative to found a family without

the fear

of molestation and disruption. However, property and family

can exist

only under a set of laws, which ānā can impose on all.

It came closer to Artha, as was used by Kautilya, to describe

Vārtā

(economy) and Dandaniti (polity). Both Buddhist rulers,

Bimbsara

and Ajatasattu recognized the two spheres of human life,

temporal and

spiritual.

As the basis of Buddhist political theory, Ajatasattu coined the

theory

of Two Wheels including the ‘Wheel of Law’ (Dhammacakka)

and

the ‘Wheel of Comand’ (ānācakka). (Balkrishna Govind

Gokhale, The
Early Buddhist View of State) It was asserted that the affairs
of this

world and those of next are like two wheels. Each has its own

distinctive identity, but they are also like the wheels of the
chariot, the

axle on which they revolve. Here, they reflect the human

society, its

desires, aspirations and destiny.

This altogether indicates that dhamma cannot operate in this

world by

itself, as it needs the assent of the state, if not support of ānā or

the

state.

b. The ānā

State finally became an instrument of the Dhamma:

i. Dhamma as a cosmic force capable of containing the power

of state and

regulating its behaviour

ii. The state becomes an ethical institution drawing its

authority from

Dhamma and guided by its repository, the Samgha.

Difference/ similarities with Brahmanical Theory

• The speculation in the Digghanikaya is suggestive of an advanced stage

of social development post the tribal stage and was probably situated in
middle Ganga plain where paddy cultivation was the basis of the economy
of the people.

• The contract theory enumerated here is distinguished from the

brahmanical one on account of the stages involved in its evolution of the
creation of family and then property.

• Digghanikaya lays emphasis on a different set of qualities required by

the king.

• The obligations of the king are also at a variance with the Brahmanical
version.

• The Digghanikaya stresses on beauty,popularity,attractiveness and

ability So physical qualities are coupled with aesthetic qualities of the
heart in deference with Buddhist bias against use of force and violence

• The only definite punishment mentioned is banishment of the guilty.

• There are several obligations on the king while only one duty is
assigned to the people i.e. to pay part of their paddy as contribution
to the king.

• The rate of taxation is not prescribed.(contemporary law book of

Baudhayana puts it down to 1/6th of produce). The idea of protection by
the king in lieu of the taxes is common to both schools of thought.

• Towards the end of the story of creation in the Digghanikaya it is stated

that thus took place the origin of social circle of nobles –
khattiyamandala

• Thus what is described is also suggestive of contract between the ruling

class of kshattriya oligarchs and the non kshattriya people and the rule
of oligarchies.

contribution
Agganna Sutta challenges Vedic ideas of maintaining social
order based on

Varna Ashrama Dharma.

-acceptance of higher morality as the guiding spirit behind the state.
The state is created through a demand for the ruke of morality and it is
this morality that stands between social order and incipient of actual
anarchy.

- the early buddhists also put forward the theory of two wheels- two
distinct realms of action by positing two separate but equally important
ideals of a cakkavatt, the leader of the temporal realm, and the
bodhisattva, preeminent in the spiritual realm. The theory of the two
domains is well expressed by a putative statement of ajatasattu

-finally, there was the early buddhist argument that morality exists for
and by itself and cannot be associated with notions of ritual purity and
impurity, the state must function as an instrument of this higher and
universal morality for the transformation of man from being a merely
political creature into a wholly moral being.