Buddhist Response To Social Conflict: Some Practical Buddhist Suggestions For The Resolution Of The Problem Of Social Conflict

Transcription

1 Buddhist Response To Social Conflict: Some Practical Buddhist Suggestions For The Resolution Of The Problem Of Social Conflict Dr. P.D. Premasiri Professor Emeritus of Pāli and Buddhist Studies, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka When Gotama, the founder of Buddhism embarked on what he conceived as the noble search, the ultimate goal he had in mind was the attainment of a state of supreme peace. The Buddhist goal of Nibbāna can be seen as the attainment of inner calm, and inner peace or harmony. Nibbāna is often referred to as peace (santi). Referring to the widely prevalent conflicts among adherents of different religious and philosophical dogmas of his time, the Buddha pointed out that the truth of Nibbāna is the single truth, realizing which people could put an end to all disputes. 1 According to the Buddha what he taught pertained to the realization of that truth, which enabled people who realized it to live in peace. Being questioned by a Sākyan, regarding the nature of his teaching, the Buddha responded that his teaching was for the purpose of enabling people who transformed themselves in accordance with what he taught to live in the world without coming into conflict with anyone. 2 There is no doubt that in these instances the emphasis in the Buddhist teaching was regarding the possibility of any individual who conforms to the Buddhist teaching and way of life to live in the world without engaging in conflict. Buddhism admitted that it is really possible for those who effectively educate and train themselves, to live among the hateful without hatred, to live among those enslaved by craving without craving, to live among the deluded without delusion. But how could this help in resolving the problem of conflict at the level of the larger society? This is often the question to which Buddhists have to respond when some critics of Buddhism point out that Buddhism is far removed from social concerns, and maintain that it is supposed to teach only a way for individuals to attain deliverance from samsāric suffering. A question that has to be answered in dealing with a theme like Buddhism and World Crises is whether the Buddhist teachings are relevant only to those who make up their mind to withdraw themselves from any engagement with world crises and seek their own individual salvation, or whether they are relevant also to a serious engagement with those crises with a view to resolving them, developing appropriate insights and adopting positive strategies. The teaching of the Buddha recognizes and includes social conflict in the wider predicament of suffering in its elucidation of the four noble truths. In the Mahādukkhakkhandha Sutta (discourse on the great mass of misery) conflicts that occur at different levels of the social life of people are explained as part of the mass of suffering that human beings are subjected to due to no other cause than their pursuit of objects of sense desire (kāma). Human experience of conflict, in whatever form it arises, could be seen as signifying part of the first noble truth of suffering. The pursuit of objects of sense desire with intense craving that leads to it can be conceived under the second noble truth dealing with the cause of suffering. Conflict occurs at the level of the family, between parents and children, between siblings, between members of the same social class, and also between states. 3 In the same context it is mentioned that wars are fought between states resulting in immense destruction of life and misery to humans using extremely destructive weapons. This last point is relevant to a discussion 1 (Verse 884) 2 (Majjhimanikāya (Pali Text Society) Vol. I, p. 109). 3 Majjhimanikāya Vol. I, p.86)

2 of the Buddhist Response to Social Conflict in the context of the immensely destructive wars that have occurred in the recent past, wars that are being fought at the present time, and those that are likely to occur in the near future at both international and intra-national levels. There are several discourses of the Buddha dealing with a causal analysis of conflicts. In all these instances, the explanatory principle that Buddhism appears to have applied is that of Dependent Arising. The emphasis in the explanations provided is clearly on the crucial psychological conditions related to conflict. The most important canonical discourses that provide explanations in terms of psychological causation are the Sakkapañha and the Mahānidāna Suttas of the Dīghanikāya, the Kalahavivāda Sutta of the Suttanipāta, the Madhupiṇḍika and the Mahādukkhakkhandha Suttas of the Majjhimanikāya. Reference was already made above to the explanation given in the last mentioned Sutta. According to the Sakkapañha Sutta, among different species of living beings inclusive of the humans conflict can be seen as an endemic social disease. 4 Answering Sakka s question relating to the origin of such conflict, the Buddha gives a psychological explanation saying that the most proximate psychological cause for conflict among living beings is their being fettered by envy and miserliness. Envy and miserliness also have as their proximate cause the likable objects, situations, and conditions of the world with which people interact with their senses. There are objects and circumstances in physical nature that are attractive and productive of pleasure (piya) as well as repulsive and productive of displeasure to perceiving subjects. The psychologically experienced pleasantness or unpleasantness and the consequent inclination of the mind to be enamored or repelled by the objective bases of such inclination are recognizable causal realities. It is explained as a subjective attitude having desire (chanda) as its condition. The mind acquires a bias in favor of the pleasant and a repulsive feeling towards the unpleasant. Such desire is dependent on thought activity (vitakka) which in turn is traced to the automatic, uncontrolled, obsessive and proliferating process of unwholesome thought. 5 In the Mahānidāna Sutta the standard principle of Dependent Arising is applied in the explanation of the specific circumstance of the arising of conflict. The explanation here, like in the contexts mentioned above, is in psychological terms. The origin of conflict is traced to the perceptual experience arising from the interaction between the internal world of sense faculties and the external world of sense objects. It is clear, that in this context as well as others in which the Buddha analyzes the perceptual process, conflict is seen as an aspect of the wider predicament of suffering (dukkha) caused by an unenlightened response to one s sense experience. According to the Mahānidāna Sutta, the crucial point in this psychological process is sensation (vedanā), which arouses craving. Craving is the basic drive for the pursuit (pariyesanā) of objects of sense desire. It is craving that drives people to obtain the desired thing. They attribute much value to their gains (lābha) with their judgments fixed upon them (vinicchayo) leading gradually to an intense feeling of passionate attachment (chandarāgo) to those objects and getting thoroughly immersed in them culminating in a strong sense of clinging or grasping (pariggaho). Then those objects become the cherished possessions of the person concerned giving rise to a miserly attachment to them. At this point one makes all possible effort and takes all necessary measures to protect what is firmly grasped as one s own possessions. It is due to the intense effort 4 Dīghanikāya (PTS) Vol.2, p Ibid. p. 277.

3 made to protect what is grasped as one s own from any form of external threat that conflict often arises. 6 Buddhist psychological analysis uses a concept that encompasses within its meaning the complex psychological activity that engenders conflict in the form of a common behavioral response to perceptual experience in association with a host of other latent psychological tendencies. This psychological activity, conceived in Buddhism as papañca is what we referred to earlier as the unenlightened response to sense experience. The Madhupiṇḍika Sutta draws attention to the need to insightfully understand how one gets entangled in the process of papañca which puts oneself in a position of vulnerability to be overwhelmed by uncontrollable proliferation of automatic and unwholesome thoughts. 7 This Sutta presents a profound psychological analysis showing how wars and conflicts begin in the minds of people. When people are under the sway of thoughts of papañca they are, as a matter of causal necessity, drawn into conflict. It is to be noted that in the Sakkapañha Sutta explanation mentioned above conflict is ultimately traced to obsessive thought processes. The Kalahavivāda Sutta of the Suttanipāta, of which the title of the Sutta itself signifies quarrels and disputes in the world offers a psychological explanation which is in agreement with the others already mentioned above. 8 This Sutta is included among a group of Suttas in the section called Aññhakavagga devoted mainly to focusing attention on the psychology of human conflicts. In the Aññhakavagga attention is drawn to two main causes of conflict. The first emphasizes the dogmatic clinging to beliefs, ideologies and individual opinions as a major source of conflict. The second emphasizes the craving and clinging to objects of desire. It is from the latter perspective that an explanation of conflict is given in the Kalahavivāda Sutta. In this context too, the fact that conflict is associated with much distress and unwholesome emotions such as miserly feelings is mentioned. Conflicts arise due to objects that people desire to acquire. They arise among people who behave in the world with minds dominated by greed. The desires and goals of people are determined by a strong sense of attachment (chanda). This situation arises dependently beginning with the interaction between mind and matter and the sensory process triggered by it. According to the Kalahavivāda Sutta sense impression (phassa) arises dependent on name and form. It is in the nature of things that things of the world stimulate the senses giving rise to savory and unsavory experience relating to sense impressions giving rise in turn to a strong sense of attachment. A highly potent source of social conflict that the teaching of the Buddha draws attention to is the dogmatic clinging to views, opinions and ideologies. They may take the form of religious dogmas, political ideologies, moral opinions, philosophical theories and so forth. Tenacity and fanaticism that is often observed in the realm of religious beliefs can be considered as a clear case in point. The Buddha points to the tendency among people to cling dogmatically to their own personal and subjective opinions claiming This alone is true and everything else is false. People get involved in hostile debates due to their strong attachment to views. 9 The Paramaññhaka Sutta of the Suttanipāta says: When people extol a certain view as the highest among dogmatic views, they see everything other than that as inferior. Therefore, they cannot transcend disputes 10 Tenacious clinging to dogmas is a latent tendency of the mind recognized in the teaching of the Buddha. People find it extremely difficult to discard mistaken 6 Dīghanikāya Vol. 2, P Majjhimanikāya Vol. I, p Suttanipāta verses Suttanipāta Verse Suttanipāta verse 796.

4 opinions they hold because those opinions have been determined by their preferences, likes, dislikes, prejudices and biases. In the Suttanipāta attention is drawn to the reluctance a person shows to go beyond a dogmatic belief to which one has been led due to one s own strong desires and inclinations. 11 In the Pasåra Sutta the Buddha points out that people are attached to their own dogmatic opinions and claim that ultimate salvation is possible only by subscribing to the dogma that each party separately holds. In this manner they talk about the excellence of their own opinions which are merely grasped by them as their own individual truths. 12 Where conflicts arise due to disagreement in opinions, each party to the conflict attempts to rationalize one s own prejudices resorting to logic and reasoning which often turns out to be rhetoric and sophistry. 13 Several Suttas of the Aññhakavagga of the Suttanipāta draw attention to the ridiculous nature of attachment to opinions while extolling a spirit of open-minded tolerance in respect of disagreements in ideology and belief. The Buddha engaged in a profound psychological critique of the sources of conflict occurring in the sphere of ideologies, religious, moral, philosophical, or political. The Buddha advised his disciples using the simile of the raft not to grasp even his own teaching as a dogma, but to utilize it for attaining the goal of crossing over the miseries of existence. In the same context he warned his disciples against mishandling his teaching pointing out that if even his teaching is wrongly grasped it will be as harmful as grasping a venomous snake by its tail. 14 In whatever context violent conflict occurs, human behavior exhibited under such circumstances is looked upon in Buddhism as ethically unwholesome. From the Buddhist ethical perspective, acts of body, speech and mind that manifest under situations of conflict are to be characterized as nothing but various forms of evil unwholesome states. The roots of all unwholesome behavior, according to Buddhism are greed, hatred and delusion. So far we have noted the Buddhist analysis of the deep-rooted psychological causes of social conflict. Apart from analyzing such causes the Buddhist teaching has been realistic enough to recognize in addition certain proximate causes associated with the material conditions of life that lead to conflict. Such recognition is no doubt, in conformity with the Buddhist teaching on Dependent Arising as the central explanatory principle applicable to most events relating to human behavior. Conflict often occurs as a reaction to various forms of oppression and deprivation in the social life of people. In the Cakkavattisīhanāda and the Kūñadanta Suttas of the Dīghanikāya it is pointed out that when the economic order of society is such that a substantial section of the community is reduced to destitution, people rebel against that social order. According to the Kūñadanta Sutta, the failure on the part of the state to look after the essential needs of the people, drive the people who are deprived of their needs to resort to crime and rebellion against the state. The imposition of penalties to deal with such a situation does not produce the desired results. According to the Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta, any social order that does not address the problem of economic poverty creates conditions for social unrest resulting eventually in the total breakdown of the moral standards of society, and the end result of it could be a catastrophic war of destruction. The important point that Buddhist social philosophy makes regarding the occurrence of such economic disparities in society is that the root cause of it is explainable through the Buddhist analysis already presented in terms of its psychological ethics. 11 (Verse 781). 12 (Suttanipāta verse 824). 13 (Ibid. verse 886). 14 Majjhimanikāya Vol. I, p

5 Ethnic and religious tensions, economic disparities, violation of fundamental human rights, resulting sometimes in social tensions escalating into destructive wars are nothing but symptoms of the underlying roots of unwholesome behavior. They could be effectively overcome only by means of clear understanding resulting in a transformation of the emotive constitution of human beings. The root causes of suffering and tension within each individual is not different from the root causes of man-made suffering and tension witnessed in the larger society. The answer to the question that we raised at the beginning of this discussion, How could Buddhist teachings help in resolving the problem of conflict at the level of the larger society? is implicitly contained here. It is evident that intense competition for the acquisition of the limited material resources of the world is a highly potent source of conflict in the modern world. It is an undeniable fact about the world that its material resources are limited. It is also an observable fact about the world that human sympathies are also limited. It is this limitedness of human sympathies that the teaching of Buddhism signifies by the term miserliness. There is nothing we can do about the limitations concerning material resources except bringing about a change of attitude relating to them. As the Buddhist teaching has noted, envy (issā) arises in persons deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the material goods that others enjoy. It has the characteristic of producing a hateful and envious feeling when desirable material enjoyments which are deprived to oneself are abundantly enjoyed by others. It becomes even stronger when the group suffering from deprivation, feel that those goods are acquired by others through unjust means. Miserliness is explained as the tendency to cling to one s possessions without any concern for the plight of others, with no intention to share one s possessions with others. Envy would not occur in situations where there is unlimited abundance of material to satisfy everyone s desire. Miserliness would not occur where people s sympathies are not limited. Envy and miserliness are the root causes of conflict. The proposed Buddhist solution is having clear insight into the situation, and making use of the human potential to expand human sympathies so that people could live in a world in which certain resources for satisfactory human living are limited, cultivating an ethics of sharing. The psychological truths that Buddhist teachings draw attention to in the analysis of conflict apply to conflicts that occur at the level of the smallest social unit, the family, and extends to much larger areas of social relationship based on diverse forms of identity. Identities could be based on ethnicity, religion, politics, culture, world-view, ethics etc. It is to be noted that conflicts that appear to be based on differences in group identity such as ethnicity often have a connection with economic disparities due to dominance by the majority group having a specific identity over a minority in every sphere of life. In some situations even a group which is numerically in a minority happens to exercise control and dominance over a larger group due to having behind it political and military power. In such situations the unwholesome psychological tendencies that engender conflict take a collectivized form within each group. The absence of a spirit of tolerance in the face of differences in identity in the context of human relationships, tend to lead to a breakdown of harmonious human relationships. The fundamental ethical principle of Buddhism that takes into account the legitimate interests of all living beings, that all living beings seek happiness, and are averse to unhappiness and pain, however different they may be in other respects, demands treating others as one would expect oneself to be treated by others. In any social context where this ethical principle is ignored, the law of the jungle takes over causing conflict and disruption in society.

6 In the Buddhist explanation of social conflict there is greater emphasis on the psychological origins of it as opposed to explanations provided purely in material terms. The Buddhist point of view is that while material conditions are recognizable among the variety of conditions that lead to conflict in society, the most crucial and root conditions that need to be dealt with in eliminating conflict belong to cognitive and emotive factors in the human psyche. All practical approaches to achieve durable harmony and peace in society are required to give due consideration to problems relating to human understanding of reality and the motivational patterns related to such understanding as important determinants of social behavior. Buddhism does not favor the view that conflict is a necessary means to social progress. Conflict has been considered under some systems of political ideology as necessitated by the historical process of evolutionary development of society. It was conceived as an inevitable part governing the dialectics of material conditions determining social change. This doctrine which advocated violence as an effective means of social change as part of the inevitable historical process gave rise to a major conflict based on differences of political ideology leading to the establishment of two rival camps that posed constant threat to world peace in the recent past. Although the influence of such dogmatic ideology has ceased to play a major role in the contemporary global context the power blocks that emerged out of the mutually opposing dogmas do seem to remain intact. The opposition between two major political ideologies that originated from opposing theories of social change and development still has an influence on major nations of the world. Those major power blocks that hold the respective political ideologies compete to maintain their dominance among weaker nations of the world producing constant global tensions. In addition to this divide based on political ideology new militant groups fanatically dedicated to religious identities have emerged posing a great threat to world peace. This has given rise to a conflict of cultures in which sharp divisions of world powers into opposing blocks has become evident. One of the major reasons for the threat of war involving the major powers of the world today is the existence of these irreconcilable differences of political ideology and cultural or religious dogmatism. Each block seems to be operating with the intention of attaining global dominance by spreading its own ideology. Heavy militarization of modern nations occurs with expansionist intentions on the one hand and with protectionist intentions on the other. The current thinking appears to conform to the common, traditional and unenlightened way of thinking according to which the best way of keeping peace is by being in readiness for war. This gives rise to more and more development of destructive military weapons and investment of immensely large proportions of resources which could otherwise be used for the well-being of mankind on the production of armaments. The end result of all this is the constant threat of a third world war. What practical measures can be proposed in accordance with Buddhist thinking, taking cognizance of the circumstances outlined above, to avert an impending major global conflict with disastrous consequences for mankind? Buddhist teachings have drawn attention to the role of the political leadership in upholding principles of good governance for the effective maintenance of social harmony and peace. Taking into account the wide prevalence of the monarchical system of government in India during the early Buddhist period, Buddhism introduced the concept of the just and moral ruler called the Wheel Turning Monarch in the sense that such a ruler is supposed to establish a political order of society on the basis of principles of ethics and morality (dhamma). A political leader of that caliber is described as a just and moral ruler (dhammiko dhammarājā) who rules with dependence on nothing but morality or justice,

7 honoring, respecting, revering, worshipping, and esteeming morality or justice. He keeps dhamma as his flag, and dhamma as his emblem and he is governed by dhamma itself. 15 It is also said that such a ruler desires territorial conquest not by the use of military force or weapons of war but by the strength of justice or morality. In Buddhist political philosophy the militaristic, imperialist policy of aggression for the purpose of territorial expansion has been condemned. It is attributed to the insatiable greed of rulers as noted in the Raññhapāla Sutta of the Majjhimanikāya. The Raṭṭhapāla Sutta of the Majjhimanikāya, for instance mentions of wars that originate from aggressive intentions of greedy heads of state, a phenomenon that must have been frequently experienced in all parts of the ancient world. Raṭṭhapāla was the son of a wealthy family who realized the vanity of all riches and decided to follow the Buddha s way of peace even against the wishes of his wealthy parents. Raṭṭhapāla who resisted all attempts on the part of his parents to lure him back to a life of sensuality happens to meet king Koravya who inquires as to whether he renounced the world due to any losses he had to face in the material conditions of living. In response to this enquiry, Raṭṭhapāla points out that it is not due to any deficiencies or deprivations in the requisites of a sensual life that he renounced the world, but due to realizing the unsatisfactory nature of sensuous greed itself. In this instance he points out how heads of state engage in destructive and aggressive wars due to their insatiate greed for power and wealth and bring destruction upon themselves as well as many others: A king wins territories on earth through aggression as far as the surrounding ocean. Yet not being contented with that, he desires territories even beyond the shores. The king and many others die and they abandon their bodies with unfulfilled desire. In the world there certainly is no point of ultimate satisfaction with regard to sense desires. 16 Buddhism attempted in every conceivable way to differentiate between expediency and morality in political action. This approach of Buddhism clearly differentiated it from other well-known modes of political thinking such as those represented in the Arthasàstra tradition of India. Buddhism makes reference to a science called khatta-vijjā, which obviously is a reference to the political science of the Indian people. In the Indian context it was studied as an instrument for the retention and advancement of political power. It appears to have taught mainly the principles of expediency based on one s material interests. Buddhism did not approve of this approach, mainly because according to it, world hegemony was the ideal set before a sovereign ruler of a state. 17 Buddhism was against the principle of pursuing any means for gaining political ends. According to Buddhism the Wheel of Power turns in dependence on the Wheel of Justice. 18 Referring to the response of the Buddhist scriptural tradition to the political philosophy of the Arthasàstra, U.N. Ghashal points out that Buddhism condemned politics as a dismal science based upon a creed of absolute selfishness and ruthless cruelty. In order to remedy this situation Buddhism pleads most impressively for the application of the standards of morality to the affairs of government. 19 Advocating the separation of politics from ethics the early Arthaśàstra works considered the acquisition and preservation of dominion the primary aim of their 15 Dīghanikāya Volume 3, p Majjhimanikāya (Edited by Lord Chalmers Pali Text Society, London 1960) Vol. II, p Dhamma, Man and Law p Le Mahàvastu Ed. E. Senart, Paris 1882, p A History of Indian Political Ideas (Oxford University Press 1959) pp. 4-5.

8 science. 20 Kautilya placed the king s interest and the interests of the ruling dynasty over and above principles of morality. He advocated the flagrant violation of morality for political ends. 21 Territorial conquest by rulers was considered to be in keeping with the Dharma. Manu advocated fighting wars for territorial conquest when the king was strong enough to do so. 22 This political doctrine idealizing imperialist aggression, war and violence was entirely rejected under the Buddhist principles of good governance. It was against such a political doctrine that Buddhism proposed the novel idea of a just and ethical universal ruler, a Wheel Turning Monarch. The well-known Buddhist emperor who was influenced by the Buddhist ideal gave up his policy of imperialist aggression and adopted the Buddhist principle of ethically based governance earning for himself the title Dharmāsoka. An important practical principle that could be derived from Buddhist political thought for the purpose of averting conflict and promoting global peace is the due recognition of the role of political leadership in preventing conflicts that assume international dimensions and taking all practical measures for nurturing and establishing such leadership. According to the Buddha, the moral attitudes and commitments of those who give direction to nations as their leaders, determine to a considerable extent the moral standards of entire societies. If the leadership moves away from principles of morality, whole societies down the line move away from morality. As the Buddha observes in the Adhammika Sutta of the Aṅguttaranikāya: When cattle are crossing a (waterway), if the leading bull goes crooked all of them go crooked as the leading one has gone crooked. Even so, among humans, if one considered the chief behaves unethically, the rest will follow suit. If the king is unethical, the whole country rests unhappily. When cattle are crossing a (waterway), if the leading bull goes straight, all of them go straight as the leading one has gone straight. Even so, among humans, if one considered the chief, indeed conducts oneself ethically all the rest follow suit. If the king is ethical, the whole country rests happily. 23 Buddhist political thought also considers the ruler as a representative of the people. This concept of political leadership is established under the very institutional structure of states governed by democratic principles. Therefore, under the currently existing systems of government in a large part of the democratic world people have not only the opportunity but also the responsibility to see that their rulers represent the interests of the people. Making war or peace should not be left entirely in the hands of the political leadership without being guided by the people s will. Leaders of nations obsessed with power are often seen to embrace hegemonic ambitions resulting in the creation of global insecurity and tensions. Global promotion of people s movements for peace compelling national leaders intoxicated with power to change their aggressive policies in respect of international relations in a way that becomes conducive to the promotion of peace could be proposed as an effective Buddhist solution to the problem of conflict. It was noted above that according to Buddhism, human behavior at both individual and social levels is determined by certain unwholesome psychological roots. 20 Ghoshal p Ibid. p Ibid. p Anguttaranikāya Vol. II, p

9 Terms with psycho-ethical signification used in Buddhism to account for such a state of affairs are those like āsava (cankers or influxes) and anusaya (latent unwholesome tendencies of mind). According to Buddhism, a durable and stable behavioral change in human beings is possible only by means of the cultivation of insight and understanding that results in the elimination of such āsava and anusaya. Education of the masses for the promotion of peace and harmony in society by giving an important place to a system of education that pays attention not merely to factual knowledge, but also to wisdom and emotional intelligence resulting in the elimination of cankers and influxes is a very important practical measure that could be adopted in minimizing conflict. It was noted above that sectarianism and dogmatism in the sphere of religious and ethical values become potent sources of extremism threatening global peace and harmony. The United Nations has already adopted a charter which encompasses a certain core of ethical principles conducive to the promotion of global harmony and coexistence amidst cultural diversity. Under the contemporary circumstances the global community needs to let go of the tendency to cling strongly to their factious opinions on the nature of a wholesome worldview, religious dogmas and life values on the one hand, and work towards reaching unanimity on a system of core beliefs and values on the other. Adoption of a system of core beliefs and values which are non-sectarian with emphasis on principles of a common Dhamma as advocated during the reign of Asoka, the Righteous ruler of India who was inspired by the teachings of the Buddha will undoubtedly be immensely conducive to peace and harmony. As the Buddha observed in the Sakkapañha Sutta, there is no doubt that people have a great desire to live without hatred, without resorting to armed conflict, without malice and without enmity. But the fanning of mutual hatred is often promoted by corrupt leaders with ulterior motives. Under the existing circumstances where there is obvious proliferation of deleterious weapons of war the global community is perfectly aware of the dangers of war. Therefore, Global promotion of people s movements for peace compelling aggressive national leaders intoxicated with power to change their social and political policies in a way that becomes conducive to the promotion of peace can also be considered as a necessary and effective practical measure to be adopted. In concluding this discussion attention is drawn here to the instruction of the Buddha given to his disciples for the promotion of peace, harmony, endearing mutual relationships, mutual respect, friendship, non-conflict, unity and oneness within the Bhikkhu community. 24 The six principles of living mentioned in this context to be cultivated in a community confirm what we have mentioned in the above discussion as principles derivable from the Buddhist teaching. The first three principles relate to an adjustment of people s bodily verbal and mental behavior in such a way that both in secrecy and in public their actions are compassionate. The fourth is that they identify a common core of ethical values conducive to the promotion of securing harmony in social living and adhere to them in secrecy and in public. The fifth is that whatever ethically earned gains, even as much as the food that is within the confines of the monk s begging bowl should not be enjoyed without sharing it with other members of the order. The sixth is that they should attempt to reach a consensus on a wholesome worldview that has the practical consequence of leading to the goal of liberation from suffering. As opposed to these principles the Buddha points out elsewhere six qualities that are considered as the root causes of conflict behavior. They are (1) being hateful and grudging, (2) being contemptuous and aggressive, (3) being envious and miserly, (4) being fraudulent and hypocritical, (5) having mean desires and wrong opinions and 24 Majjhimanikāya Vol. 1, p. 322f.

10 (6) holding with tenacity to one s own dogmatic opinion and having difficulty in letting go of one s mistaken opinion. 25 All world crises resulting from human interactions are, according to Buddhism the result individual and group behavior of the humans rooted in unwholesome qualities of mind. The solution to it is to transform the very inner roots governing human behavior with insight and understanding. People who have achieved such transformation are also required to give leadership for the effective transformation of the rest of the society. 25 Majjhimanikāya Vol. 3, p. 245f.