Australian prime minister asks Parliament to approve apology to Aborigines

Australian prime minister asks Parliament to approve apology to Aborigines


SYDNEY: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia on Tuesday asked Parliament to approve a historic apology to the country's indigenous minorities for their past mistreatment at the hands of the authorities.
The apology itself will be made by Rudd on Wednesday, but he presented the text he intends to use to Parliament, which is dominated by his party and is expected to approve it.
"We apologize for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians," the text says.
The apology is aimed particularly at the "stolen generations," the thousands of Aboriginal and mixed-race children who were taken from their parents, in some states as part of a policy to "breed out the color," in the words of Cecil Cook, who went by the title of chief protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory in the 1930s.
The text of the apology fulfills one of the key requirements of the people who have been calling for such a move for years: it contains the word "sorry."
"We apologize especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry," it says.
Kirstie Parker, the managing editor of the Aboriginal newspaper the Koori Mail, said she felt that the apology had hit the right note.
"I think it is a very broad but in some places quite specific statement, and I found it very moving," she said.
But she says that for many indigenous Australians the exercise will fall short because the government has ruled out offering compensation to those affected by the policy.
"There are many people who are saying that they must back this up with compensation," Parker said.
The previous government of John Howard had refused to apologize, partially because they did not feel responsible for the misdeeds of past administrations but also partly because they were frightened that it would trigger massive compensation claims.
Last year, a court in South Australia awarded 525,000 Australian dollars, or about $475,000, to Bruce Trevorrow, who was taken from his mother when he was a baby, for unlawful treatment and false imprisonment.
"I get a distinct feeling among Aboriginal people that they feel that compensation is an absolute possibility, notwithstanding the prime minister's very vehement statement about not considering it," Parker said.
The apology does end with a commitment to eradicating the gap between mainstream Australia and the 2.5 percent of the population who are Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders.
The apology imagines "a future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity."
But Parker says that is not enough.
"The government has been saying 'we won't pay compensation, but we will commit ourselves to closing the gap.' I think that is flawed because what they are committing themselves to is delivering to black fellas what they give to every other Australian," she said.
Wednesday is the first full sitting of the new Parliament and making the apology the first item of business is deeply symbolic.
A 1997 report by the government's Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission estimated that between 1 in 3 and 1 in 10 indigenous and mixed-race children were taken from their parents in the decades leading up to 1969, when the policy was formally abandoned.
The effects of two centuries of discrimination, coupled with the friction between an ancient and unique culture and the modern world, have left many indigenous Australians eking out a living on the margins of society.
Aboriginal life expectancy is 17 years shorter than for the average Australian; indigenous unemployment is running at three times the rate of the country as a whole; and the incidence of crime and alcoholism is significantly higher in indigenous communities.

Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples

Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples
House of Representatives
Parliament House, Canberra

13 February 2008

E&OE


—I move:

That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time. And that is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation’s soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia.

Last year I made a commitment to the Australian people that if we formed the next government of the Commonwealth we would in parliament say sorry to the Stolen Generations. Today I honour that commitment. I said we would do so early in the life of the new parliament. Again, today I honour that commitment by doing so at the commencement of this the 42nd parliament of the Commonwealth. Because the time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great Commonwealth, for all Australians—those who are Indigenous and those who are not—to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation.

Some have asked, ‘Why apologise?’ Let me begin to answer by telling the parliament just a little of one person’s story—an elegant, eloquent and wonderful woman in her 80s, full of life, full of funny stories, despite what has happened in her life’s journey. A woman who has travelled a long way to be with us today, a member of the Stolen Generation who shared some of her story with me when I called around to see her just a few days ago. Nungala Fejo, as she prefers to be called, was born in the late 1920s. She remembers her earliest childhood days living with her family and her community in a bush camp just outside Tennant Creek. She remembers the love and the warmth and the kinship of those days long ago, including traditional dancing around the camp fire at night. She loved the dancing. She remembers once getting into strife when, as a four-year-old girl, she insisted on dancing with the male tribal elders rather than just sitting and watching the men, as the girls were supposed to do.

But then, sometime around 1932, when she was about four, she remembers the coming of the welfare men. Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the creek bank where the children could run and hide. What they had not expected was that the white welfare men did not come alone. They brought a truck, they brought two white men and an Aboriginal stockman on horseback cracking his stockwhip. The kids were found; they ran for their mothers, screaming, but they could not get away. They were herded and piled onto the back of the truck. Tears flowing, her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck as her children were taken away to the Bungalow in Alice, all in the name of protection.

A few years later, government policy changed. Now the children would be handed over to the missions to be cared for by the churches. But which church would care for them? The kids were simply told to line up in three lines. Nanna Fejo and her sister stood in the middle line, her older brother and cousin on her left. Those on the left were told that they had become Catholics, those in the middle Methodists and those on the right Church of England. That is how the complex questions of post-reformation theology were resolved in the Australian outback in the 1930s. It was as crude as that. She and her sister were sent to a Methodist mission on Goulburn Island and then Croker Island. Her Catholic brother was sent to work at a cattle station and her cousin to a Catholic mission.

Nanna Fejo’s family had been broken up for a second time. She stayed at the mission until after the war, when she was allowed to leave for a prearranged job as a domestic in Darwin. She was 16. Nanna Fejo never saw her mum again. After she left the mission, her brother let her know that her mum had died years before, a broken woman fretting for the children that had literally been ripped away from her.

I asked Nanna Fejo what she would have me say today about her story. She thought for a few moments then said that what I should say today was that all mothers are important. And she added: ‘Families—keeping them together is very important. It’s a good thing that you are surrounded by love and that love is passed down the generations. That’s what gives you happiness.’ As I left, later on, Nanna Fejo took one of my staff aside, wanting to make sure that I was not too hard on the Aboriginal stockman who had hunted those kids down all those years ago. The stockman had found her again decades later, this time himself to say, ‘Sorry.’ And remarkably, extraordinarily, she had forgiven him.

Nanna Fejo’s is just one story. There are thousands, tens of thousands of them: stories of forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their mums and dads over the better part of a century. Some of these stories are graphically told in Bringing Them Home, the report commissioned in 1995 by Prime Minister Keating and received in 1997 by Prime Minister Howard. There is something terribly primal about these firsthand accounts. The pain is searing; it screams from the pages. The hurt, the humiliation, the degradation and the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children is a deep assault on our senses and on our most elemental humanity.

These stories cry out to be heard; they cry out for an apology. Instead, from the nation’s parliament there has been a stony and stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade. A view that somehow we, the parliament, should suspend our most basic instincts of what is right and what is wrong. A view that, instead, we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the Stolen Generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon. But the Stolen Generations are not intellectual curiosities. They are human beings, human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments. But, as of today, the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end.

The nation is demanding of its political leadership to take us forward. Decency, human decency, universal human decency, demands that the nation now steps forward to right a historical wrong. That is what we are doing in this place today. But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act. Let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers. That, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families. That this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute. That this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called ‘mixed lineage’ were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with ‘the problem of the Aboriginal population’.

One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated, and I quote:

Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes—

to quote the protector—

will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white ...

The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views, expounding them at length in Canberra in 1937 at the first national conference on Indigenous affairs that brought together the Commonwealth and state protectors of natives. These are uncomfortable things to be brought out into the light. They are not pleasant. They are profoundly disturbing. But we must acknowledge these facts if we are to deal once and for all with the argument that the policy of generic forced separation was somehow well motivated, justified by its historical context and, as a result, unworthy of any apology today.

Then we come to the argument of intergenerational responsibility, also used by some to argue against giving an apology today. But let us remember the fact that the forced removal of Aboriginal children was happening as late as the early 1970s. The 1970s is not exactly a point in remote antiquity. There are still serving members of this parliament who were first elected to this place in the early 1970s. It is well within the adult memory span of many of us. The uncomfortable truth for us all is that the parliaments of the nation, individually and collectively, enacted statutes and delegated authority under those statutes that made the forced removal of children on racial grounds fully lawful.

There is a further reason for an apology as well: it is that reconciliation is in fact an expression of a core value of our nation—and that value is a fair go for all. There is a deep and abiding belief in the Australian community that, for the Stolen Generations, there was no fair go at all. And there is a pretty basic Aussie belief that says it is time to put right this most outrageous of wrongs. It is for these reasons, quite apart from concerns of fundamental human decency, that the governments and parliaments of this nation must make this apology. Because, put simply, the laws that our parliaments enacted made the Stolen Generations possible. We, the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible, not those who gave effect to our laws, the problem lay with the laws themselves. As has been said of settler societies elsewhere, we are the bearers of many blessings from our ancestors and therefore we must also be the bearer of their burdens as well. Therefore, for our nation, the course of action is clear. Therefore for our people, the course of action is clear. And that is, to deal now with what has become one of the darkest chapters in Australia’s history. In doing so, we are doing more than contending with the facts, the evidence and the often rancorous public debate. In doing so, we are also wrestling with our own soul. This is not, as some would argue, a black-armband view of history; it is just the truth: the cold, confronting, uncomfortable truth. Facing with it, dealing with it, moving on from it. And until we fully confront that truth, there will always be a shadow hanging over us and our future as a fully united and fully reconciled people. It is time to reconcile. It is time to recognise the injustices of the past. It is time to say sorry. It is time to move forward together.

To the Stolen Generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the Government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the Parliament of Australia, I am sorry. And I offer you this apology without qualification. We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering we, the parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied. We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments. In making this apology, I would also like to speak personally to the members of the Stolen Generation and their families: to those here today, so many of you; to those listening across the nation—from Yuendumu, in the central west of the Northern Territory, to Yabara, in North Queensland, and to Pitjantjatjara in South Australia.

I know that, in offering this apology on behalf of the government and the parliament, there is nothing I can say today that can take away the pain you have suffered personally. Whatever words I speak today, I cannot undo that. Words alone are not that powerful. Grief is a very personal thing. I say to non-Indigenous Australians listening today who may not fully understand why what we are doing is so important, I ask those non-Indigenous Australians to imagine for a moment if this had happened to you. I say to honourable members here present: imagine if this had happened to us. Imagine the crippling effect. Imagine how hard it would be to forgive. But my proposal is this: if the apology we extend today is accepted in the spirit of reconciliation, in which it is offered, we can today resolve together that there be a new beginning for Australia. And it is to such a new beginning that I believe the nation is now calling us.

Australians are a passionate lot. We are also a very practical lot. For us, symbolism is important but, unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong. It is not sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history. Today’s apology, however inadequate, is aimed at righting past wrongs. It is also aimed at building a bridge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—a bridge based on a real respect rather than a thinly veiled contempt. Our challenge for the future is now to cross that bridge and, in so doing, embrace a new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Embracing, as part of that partnership, expanded link-up and other critical services to help the Stolen Generations to trace their families, if at all possible, and to provide dignity to their lives. But the core of this partnership for the future is to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities. This new partnership on closing the gap will set concrete targets for the future: within a decade to halve the widening gap in literacy, numeracy and employment outcomes and opportunities for Indigenous children, within a decade to halve the appalling gap in infant mortality rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and, within a generation, to close the equally appalling 17-year life gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous when it comes when it comes to overall life expectancy.

The truth is: a business as usual approach towards Indigenous Australians is not working. Most old approaches are not working. We need a new beginning. A new beginning which contains real measures of policy success or policy failure. A new beginning, a new partnership, on closing the gap with sufficient flexibility not to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach for each of the hundreds of remote and regional Indigenous communities across the country but instead allows flexible, tailored, local approaches to achieve commonly-agreed national objectives that lie at the core of our proposed new partnership. And a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation. However, unless we as a parliament set a destination for the nation, we have no clear point to guide our policy, our programs or our purpose; no centralised organising principle.

So let us resolve today to begin with the little children—a fitting place to start on this day of apology for the Stolen Generations. Let us resolve over the next five years to have every Indigenous four-year-old in a remote Aboriginal community enrolled and attending a proper early childhood education centre or opportunity and engaged in proper preliteracy and prenumeracy programs. Let us resolve to build new educational opportunities for these little ones, year by year, step by step, following the completion of their crucial preschool year. Let us resolve to use this systematic approach to building future educational opportunities for Indigenous children to provide proper primary and preventive health care for the same children, to begin the task of rolling back the obscenity that we find today in infant mortality rates in remote Indigenous communities—up to four times higher than in other communities.

None of this will be easy. Most of it will be hard—very hard. But none of it, none of it, is impossible, and all of it is achievable with clear goals, clear thinking, and by placing an absolute premium on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility as the guiding principles of this new partnership on closing the gap. The mood of the nation is for reconciliation now, between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The mood of the nation on Indigenous policy and politics is now very simple. The nation is calling on us, the politicians, to move beyond our infantile bickering, our point-scoring and our mindlessly partisan politics and elevate at least this one core area of national responsibility to a rare position beyond the partisan divide. Surely this is the spirit, the unfulfilled spirit, of the 1967 referendum. Surely, at least from this day forward, we should give it a go.

So let me take this one step further to take what some may see as a piece of political posturing and make a practical proposal to the opposition on this day, the first full sitting day of the new parliament. I said before the election the nation needed a kind of war cabinet on parts of Indigenous policy, because the challenges are too great and the consequences too great to just allow it all to become a political football, as it has been so often in the past. I therefore propose a joint policy commission, to be led by the Leader of the Opposition and myself and, with a mandate to develop and implement—to begin with—an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years. It will be consistent with the government’s policy framework, a new partnership for closing the gap. If this commission operates well, I then propose that it work on the further task of constitutional recognition of the first Australians, consistent with the longstanding platform commitments of my party and the pre-election position of the opposition. This would probably be desirable in any event because, unless such a proposition were absolutely bipartisan, it would fail at a referendum. As I have said before, the time has come for new approaches to enduring problems. And working constructively together on such defined projects, I believe, would meet with the support of the nation. It is time for fresh ideas to fashion the nation’s future.

Today the parliament has come together to right a great wrong. We have come together to deal with the past so that we might fully embrace the future. And we have had sufficient audacity of faith to advance a pathway to that future, with arms extended rather than with fists still clenched. So let us seize the day. Let it not become a moment of mere sentimental reflection. Let us take it with both hands and allow this day, this day of national reconciliation, to become one of those rare moments in which we might just be able to transform the way in which the nation thinks about itself, whereby the injustice administered to these Stolen Generations in the name of these, our parliaments, causes all of us to reappraise, at the deepest level of our beliefs, the real possibility of reconciliation writ large. Reconciliation across all Indigenous Australia. Reconciliation across the entire history of the often bloody encounter between those who emerged from the Dreamtime a thousand generations ago and those who, like me, came across the seas only yesterday. Reconciliation which opens up whole new possibilities for the future.

For the nation to bring the first two centuries of our settled history to a close, as we begin a new chapter and which we embrace with pride, admiration and awe these great and ancient cultures we are blessed, truly blessed, to have among us. Cultures that provide a unique, uninterrupted human thread linking our Australian continent to the most ancient prehistory of our planet. And growing from this new respect, to see our Indigenous brothers and sisters with fresh eyes, with new eyes, and with our minds wide open as to how we might tackle, together, the great practical challenges that Indigenous Australia faces in the future.

So let us turn this page together: Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, Government and Opposition, Commonwealth and State, and write this new chapter in our nation’s story together. First Australians, First Fleeters, and those who first took the Oath of Allegiance just a few weeks ago. Let’s grasp this opportunity to craft a new future for this great land: Australia. I commend the motion to the House.

Myanmar Poet Arrested for Critical Poem

Myanmar Poet Arrested for Critical Poem


January 24, 2008 - 5:24am

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - A Myanmar poet known for his odes to love was arrested after penning a Valentine's Day poem that carried a hidden message criticizing the leader of the country's military junta, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, colleagues said Thursday.

The poet, Saw Wai, was arrested Tuesday, a day after his poem "February 14" was published in the popular weekly entertainment magazine "A Chit," or "Love," according to friends and colleagues who spoke on condition of anonymity fearing reprisals.

The eight-line poem in Burmese is about a man brokenhearted after falling for a fashion model, whom he thanks for having taught him the meaning of love.
But if read vertically, the first word of each line forms the phrase: "Power crazy Senior General Than Shwe."

Than Shwe, 74, who has headed the junta since 1992, has little tolerance for criticism. He keeps himself sequestered in his remote, newly built capital, Naypyitaw, deep in the countryside.
The junta regularly arrests dissidents and critics, and drew the world's condemnation after turning its troops on peaceful anti-government protesters last September. More than 30 people, including Buddhist monks who led the protests, were killed in the crackdown.

Saw Wai regularly writes innocuous love poems for Burmese-language magazines and journals. He is also a member of an organization of local artists and actors called White Rainbow which helps HIV-infected orphans.

"You have to be in love truly, madly, deeply and then you can call it real love," reads the poem for which he was arrested.

The verse ends with a call for unity in the name of love: "Millions of people who know how to love please clap your hands of gilded gold and laugh out loud."
The Burmese word for million is "Than" and the word for gold is "Shwe."
News vendors in Yangon, the largest city in Myanmar, also called Burma, said authorities had removed the magazine from their newsstands.

Saw Wai's poem is the latest attempt by artists and others to circumvent the junta's muzzle on expression.
A comedy troupe known as "The Four Fruits" has recently become popular for satirical jokes about the September crackdown.
A well-known comedian who uses the stage name Zarganar was arrested during the crackdown and held for three weeks for providing food and other necessities to the monks who spearheaded the protests. He had earlier been imprisoned twice and his comedy routines were banned for their jokes about the regime.

Several monks have gained strong followings for delivering sermons with anti-government messages thinly cloaked in religious language, such as one stating that, "Those who kill monks will go to hell." There is high demand for CDs of the sermons, which are circulated among friends and families.
The junta took power in 1988 after crushing a democracy movement led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. In 1990, it refused to hand over power when Suu Kyi's party won a landslide election victory. Suu Kyi has been in detention for 12 of the last 18 years.

(Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - A Myanmar poet known for his odes to love was arrested after penning a Valentine's Day poem that carried a hidden message criticizing the leader of the country's military junta, Senior Gen. Than Shwe, colleagues said Thursday.

The poet, Saw Wai, was arrested Tuesday, a day after his poem "February 14" was published in the popular weekly entertainment magazine "A Chit," or "Love," according to friends and colleagues who spoke on condition of anonymity fearing reprisals.
The eight-line poem in Burmese is about a man brokenhearted after falling for a fashion model, whom he thanks for having taught him the meaning of love.
But if read vertically, the first word of each line forms the phrase: "Power crazy Senior General Than Shwe."

Than Shwe, 74, who has headed the junta since 1992, has little tolerance for criticism. He keeps himself sequestered in his remote, newly built capital, Naypyitaw, deep in the countryside.
The junta regularly arrests dissidents and critics, and drew the world's condemnation after turning its troops on peaceful anti-government protesters last September. More than 30 people, including Buddhist monks who led the protests, were killed in the crackdown.

Saw Wai regularly writes innocuous love poems for Burmese-language magazines and journals. He is also a member of an organization of local artists and actors called White Rainbow which helps HIV-infected orphans.
"You have to be in love truly, madly, deeply and then you can call it real love," reads the poem for which he was arrested.
The verse ends with a call for unity in the name of love: "Millions of people who know how to love please clap your hands of gilded gold and laugh out loud."
The Burmese word for million is "Than" and the word for gold is "Shwe."
News vendors in Yangon, the largest city in Myanmar, also called Burma, said authorities had removed the magazine from their newsstands.
Saw Wai's poem is the latest attempt by artists and others to circumvent the junta's muzzle on expression.
A comedy troupe known as "The Four Fruits" has recently become popular for satirical jokes about the September crackdown.
A well-known comedian who uses the stage name Zarganar was arrested during the crackdown and held for three weeks for providing food and other necessities to the monks who spearheaded the protests. He had earlier been imprisoned twice and his comedy routines were banned for their jokes about the regime.

Several monks have gained strong followings for delivering sermons with anti-government messages thinly cloaked in religious language, such as one stating that, "Those who kill monks will go to hell." There is high demand for CDs of the sermons, which are circulated among friends and families.

The junta took power in 1988 after crushing a democracy movement led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. In 1990, it refused to hand over power when Suu Kyi's party won a landslide election victory. Suu Kyi has been in detention for 12 of the last 18 years.

(Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Buddhism and Tolerance for World Peace

Buddhism and Tolerance for World Peace

Where is the peace?

Peace in our world – is becoming a much sort after commodity. Having all the materiality we need, we are now turning around and asking where is the peace?

Both personal peace and social peace is not guaranteed in our world.

To sustain our lifestyle, most persons work long hours at the sacrifice of our family wellbeing and relationships.

Can tolerance play a part in generating this peace we are looking for?

If we increased tolerance in our personal world and in our social world, will this help?

Well let’s look at some concepts of what we call peace. Peace means – no war, no fighting, no robbery, no hate, no concern, enough food, shelter, medicines, schooling, scholarship, good sleep, good health.

We all know what peaceful conditions are, but how do you ensure one can keep them?

With all our achievements in this world we have not been able to bring peace and happiness to our world. Every day we see atrocities on a global and local level.

It is time for us to seriously take stock of what we are doing. Apply analysis to our world activity, both personal and global.

Lets stop and take a look.

What are the ingredients that are missing in our world that we know will bring peace.

Tolerance is a key ingredient. We can and should aim to provide all the essential basic ingredients to help bring peace- food, shelter, education, love, safety. And we must generate this idea of tolerance. Tolerance to put up with the conditions we currently have and to strive to improve them. To endure adverse conditions to achieve a final goal. Our final goal being world peace.

Tolerance. What is tolerance?

The Oxford English dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989, Oxford University Press. Defines tolerance as : “The action or practice of enduring or sustaining pain or hardship; the power or capacity of enduring; endurance.”

“The action or practice of tolerating; toleration; The disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; Freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forebearance; catholicity of spirit.”

“One who tolerates opinions or practices different from his own; one free from bigotry.”

“To allow to exist or to be done or practiced without authoritative interference or molestation, to allow, permit.”

“To bear without repugnance; to allow intellectually, or in taste, sentiment, or principle; to put up with.”

“The action of sustaining or enduring; endurance of evil, suffering etc.”

“The action of allowing; permission granted by authority, license.”

“The action or practice of tolerating or allowing what is not actually approved forbearance, sufferance.”

“Allowance (with or without limitations) by the ruling power, of the exercise of religion otherwise than in the form officially established or recognized.”

“Tolerationism – Toleration of religious differences as a principle or system.”

From the above definitions we can say that tolerance is the qualities of patience, compassion, generosity and ethical living to build harmony leading to peace. Having tolerance means to have the ability to listen. Listens to the beliefs, philosophies, culture and personality of others. Practicing tolerance moves us away from hate or ill will; greed or jealousy and ignorance or narrow mindedness.

Tolerance finds a way to allow differences to be respected and grow. It is fresh and clear, not clouded by aversion to diversity. It is not afraid of differences.

To allow all beings to live together regardless of creed, race, age, goals and ideals, this is tolerance.

Tolerance accepts the differences that exist in the world. It accepts that others do think and act differently to oneself- even within our own family – brothers and sisters born together, still can be opposites in personalities and belief systems.

To bring peace to our internal and external world – this is our challenge. Buddha Dhamma gives very clear instructions as to how to come to internal peace.

In the Digha Nikaya, the Lord Buddha expounded the Cakkvatti-Sihanda Suttanta. In this Sutta, the Lord Buddha gives instructions on how to rule a Kingdom to bring peace. We ought to take note and request governments, rulers and organisations to apply this type of governance, that is based on tolerance, compassion and wisdom.

King Asoka was a great Indian King, who after winning many battles, questioned the price of victory against the suffering sustained in human life.

His analysis lead to him rejecting violence and turning to the Buddha Dhamma to rule his country.

Here is an excerpt from the paper written by John D. Hughes titled Recollection by Dharma of the Danda of the Venerable King Asoka.

“The Ariyan duty of a Cakkavatti is that of leaning on The Dhamma, honouring respecting and revering it, doing homage to it , hallowing it, being thyself a Dhamma banner, a Dhamma –signal, having the Dhamma as thy master, shouldst provide the right watch, ward and protection for thine own folk, for thy army, for the nobles, for vassals, for brahmans, and householders, for town and country dwellers, for the religious world, and for the beasts and birds. Through= out thy kingdom let non wrongdoing prevail. And whosoever in thy kingdom is poor, to him let wealth be given.”

The Venerable King Asoka repeatedly declared, he understood Dhamma to be the energetic practice of the socio-moral virtues of honesty, truthfulness, compassion, mercifulness, benevolence, non-violence, considerate behaviour towards all, “little wrong and many good deeds” non-extravagance, non-acquisitiveness, and non-injury to animals.”

“Towards all religious sects he adopted a policy of respect and guaranteed them full freedom to live according to their own principles, but he also urged them to exert themselves for the “ increase of their inner worthiness” . He suggested respect for the creeds of others, condoned praise, the good points of others, and suggested to refrain from vehement adverse criticism of the view points of others”. Page 41 BDDR Vol 6 No. 1

Buddhism is the system of practice that helps the one practicing to achieve the state of nirvana to full enlightenment. By focusing on the Law of cause and effect as taught by the Buddha – that all things are conditioned, that is they depend on the causes for their existence, one practices to make the right causes to stop suffering.

Through this persistent practice of developing compassion, generosity, morality and purifying the mind, one develops ability to endure and tolerate suffering with the goal of obtaining peace.

By applying the Buddha’s teachings to understanding why things are the way they are, one develops tolerance for their current conditions, be they lack of materiality or experiencing painful mental states, anxiety, worry or depression.

Buddhism acknowledges the view that all beings want happiness.

We all know that no being wants to be destroyed. No being wants to be not loved. No being wants to be hated. No being wants to be dis-honoured. No being wants to be poor. No being wants to be un-happy. No being wants to be blamed.

Some of the causes that erode peace are: wishing to live at the destruction of others, wishing success for ourselves and others to not succeed. Hating the way others look and sound. Wishing wealth for oneself without any care for the wealth of others. Doing things to gain wealth for self at the expense of others. Having these ideas and speaking with such words and doing such actions we our selves create the causes for war to appear in our worlds.

It is in our everyday lives that we create these causes as persons or nations. Each person does it for themselves. To bring real peace to the world, peace that can continue to be created we need to address the causes of war. Stop making the causes that bring war. Make the causes that bring peace. Generate a win-win attitude. Our actions, personal and global should intend to be for the benefit of self and others.

It is of course easier thought or said than done. Or is it? If we don't start to believe that the world can be a peaceful place with no war and with everyone having enough food, water, wealth- then this reality cannot come into being. Our task is clear- to convince all persons to make causes for peace and not go towards war.

As practicing Buddhists we know that it is difficult to not make the causes to experience the above results in our world. Yet there is a way, the Buddha said so. Another example is what the Buddha said about creating long life for an organisation or group. He said they should 'Gather in harmony, meet in harmony and disperse in harmony'. To really put this into practice we must tolerate any difficulties or differences that arise, to put them down, to restrain ourselves, to focus on harmonising with all members of our group or organisation.

By the law of cause and effect, each being can make the causes for peace rather than war. By example, we can teach every human being on this planet to make the causes for peace and happiness. To be kind to the persons in their world. Act and live to fulfill the needs of the persons in your immediate world- your family, the people you work with, the people in your village. Start small and then steadily expand your thought to include more and more other people. Jump into the other persons' life and see what will make them happy. Experience the world from their view.

It takes great effort to overcome the selfish view. We must start to think about the welfare of self and others. To make everything we do as an act of extending the result to self and the beings in our world.

We look on the personal level, then we can extend to a larger circle- our village, our school, our work, our countries. What is needed? What can we do to help? By every person thinking in this way, more causes for peace will be made, rather than for war.

The seeds or causes of the war that is arising now in the world, were made a long time ago. It is not possible to stop what is arising now, yet we can stop creating more causes for war not to come at a future time. Instead, now we can sow the seeds of peace to fruit at a future time, so all beings can live together in peace and harmony.

May all beings be well and happy.



References:

1.Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edition, 1989, Oxford University Press. States defines tolerance as “ The action or practice of enduring or sustaining pain or hardship; the power or capacity of enduring; endurance.”

2.Hughes, John David, the article “Recollection by Dharma of the Danda of the Venerable King Asoka” published in Buddha Dhyana Dana Review Volume 6 Number 1, Page 39 to 41.

Buddhism and Jesus Christ

Buddhism and Jesus Christ

by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John WeldonAs a whole, Buddhism has little directly to say about Jesus Christ. It does acknowledge what most men do: that He was a great person. For the most part, however, His Gospel teachings are largely ignored and a more convenient Jesus is accepted: one who, along with the Buddha, smiles serenely.

But on the other hand, there is a sense in which Buddhism explicitly rejects Jesus Christ. What Christian belief in a personal Savior from sin represents to Buddhism is a serious form of personal ignorance. Personal Savior? No "person" exists. So what is there to save? And no genuine Savior can exist either, for we must ultimately save ourselves. The central message of Christianity (Jn. 3:16) is thus dismissed as remnants of beclouded consciousness.

After all, one could expect that in Buddhism the biblical Christ would be rather objectionable, for he rejects what Buddhism accepts and accepts what Buddhism rejects. He stresses sin and repentance before God (Jn. 5:34; Mt. 4:17). He believes in a loving, infinite-personal Creator who makes moral demands upon and judges His creatures (Lk. 12:5). He denies the possibility of self-perfection and refers to himself alone as the Savior of the world (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Jn. 6:29, 47; 14:6). He not only believes in a creator God, the creator God is His personal Father (Jn. 14:5-6); He is God’s unique and only Son (Jn. 3:16, 18). Spiritual enlightenment and salvation come only by Him (Jn. 14:6) because Jesus is "the true light" of the world (Jn. 1:9; 8:12; 12:46). It is impossible that these could come through Buddha and his philosophy, or through Bodhisattvas and their sacrifice of remaining in the world, or through any other self-achieving method (cf., Mt. 19:24-26). Jesus Christ utterly rejects polytheism and paganism (e.g., Mt. 6:7; 22:37; Lk. 4:8). His worldview is thoroughly based on moral absolutes and it is by His moral standards that all creatures, heavenly and earthly, will be judged and required to give an account (Jn. 5:22-29; Col. 1:16-18; Lk. 10:19-20; 1 Cor. 6:3). Jesus accepted the permanency (Mt. 25:46) and utility of suffering (Heb. 2:10; 5:8-9)—indeed it is by suffering alone that the world is redeemed and through which (in part) God sanctifies His people (1 Pet. 2:21, 24; 3:18; 4:1; Phil. 3:10).

Although ecumenically minded people would find it difficult to accept, the Jesus Christ of history is not merely un-Buddhist; He is anti-Buddhist. If we could bring Jesus and Buddha together for a discussion, neither Jesus nor Gautama would find the other’s worldview acceptable. According to Christ, Buddha would certainly not have been spiritually enlightened—far from it. His rejection of a creator God would classify him as a pagan unbeliever, however adept he was at philosophical speculation. "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1). Such a man would need repentance and faith in the one true God (Jn. 17:3). In other words, Jesus’ view of Buddha is that he would require salvation—just like everyone else.

And conversely, Buddha would have no need for Christ as Savior, for Buddha taught total, unswerving self-reliance. Compare this with Jeremiah 17:5—"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord." Thus, in discussing Buddhism’s appeal to modern man, Stephen Neill is correct in observing that this appeal is based squarely upon prideful self-sufficiency:

For the modern man one of the most attractive things in this scheme is that in it he is entirely cast back upon himself. ‘Therefore, O Ananda, take the self as a lamp; take the self as a refuge. Betake yourselves to no external refuges. Hold fast as a refuge to the truth. Look not for refuge to anyone besides yourself. Work out your own salvation with diligence.’ So the Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta, one of the most famous of Buddhist classics....The Buddha attained to enlightenment by his own intense concentration; he called in no help from any god or savior. So it must be with the disciple. God has been abolished, at least as far as any possibility of a practical relationship to him is concerned. There is no hope for a man outside of himself—or rather in his inner apprehension of the meaning of the Buddha, the Law and the Order. ‘Man for himself.’ That is the modern mood. The last thing that a modern man desires is to be told that he needs to be saved, or that he requires the help of a savior.... So naturally Buddhism has attractive power.... 24

Whereas Theravada views the Buddha as an enlightened man (more enlightened, no doubt, than the biblical Christ, but still a man), Mahayanists have placed Buddha on the level of a divine being who rivals Christ in his deity, although still falling far short of the biblical concept.

The Mahayana text Matrceta Satapancasatkastotra I, 2-4 states of Buddha:

To go to him for refuge, to praise and to honor him, to abide in his religion, that is fit for those with sense. The only Protector, he is without faults or their residues; The all-knowing, he has all the virtues, and that without fail. For even the spiteful cannot find with any justice any fault in the Lord—in his thought, words or deeds. 25

The Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika) says of him "He thus becomes the Saviour of the world with its Gods" (XXIV, 17). 26

Finally, in the area of miraculous, we find another disagreement with Christian faith: "It may be fairly said that Buddhism is not a miraculous religion in the sense that none of its central doctrines depend on miracles." 27

By contrast, how many Christological themes or doctrines depend upon the miraculous? Messianic prophecy (Isa. 9:6; Ps. 22), the incarnation (Phil. 2), virgin birth (Mt. 1:25), Christ’s miracles as proof of his Messiahship (Mt. 8:15-17), the miracles associated with the crucifixion (Mt. 27:50-53), resurrection (Lk. 24:36-39) and atonement (e.g., the miracle of regeneration), the ascension (Acts 1:9-10), the second coming (Mt. 24), etc. The differences are again striking.

In conclusion, Buddha and Jesus are not just a little bit short of being friends. The suffering and exaltation of Christ is hardly equivalent to the serene peacefulness of the Buddha entering nirvana. Jesus came to save the world, not himself (Jn. 12:27). Indeed, Jesus said, "He that would save his life will lose it" (Mt. 16:25). He obeyed and glorified the very God whom Buddha contentedly rejected (Jn. 17:4).

BUDDHISM AND DEMOCRACY

BUDDHISM AND DEMOCRACY

KIRTI BUNCHUA

As both terms, "Buddhism" and "democracy", are very broad, this chapter will limit their scope.

The term "Buddhism" here will be limited to only Theravada Buddhism, that is, to the teaching of the Buddha found in the Tipataka and clarified by the traditional commentaries of the Theravada School. To open to Mahayana Buddhism would add more and more later scriptures whose canonical list varies from school to school within the Mahayana tradition.

As for the term "democracy", we must distinguish between a "democratic regime" and the "democratic spirit" in a regime. It is possible to have a democratic regime with an absolutist spirit, and an absolute regime with a democratic spirit, not to mention regimes that use the name "democratic" for purposes of obfuscation. For this chapter to take the term "democracy" for the government or regime would be anachronistic, because in the time of the Buddha, such an idea would have seemed impossible and absurd. Hence, our topic, "Buddhism and democracy" is possible only if we limit our consi-deration to the "democratic spirit" as far as it can be found in Buddha’s teachings and practices.

SOME PRELIMINARY REMARKS

1. The Indians of Buddha’s time could know only two types of regime: absolute monarchy with one absolute king at the head of the state, and oligarchic monarchy with several kings at the head of the state, but close joint authority as absolute as in the first regime.

Rajagrh is an example of an absolute monarchy, while Kapila-vatthu (Buddha’s original state) and Vesali are examples of the oli-garchic monarchy states.

Buddha never showed a preference for one or the other of these political regimes, but gave guidelines to be followed by the people of both regimes.

2. Buddha had no intention of teaching politics. He seems to have had no preference for any regime or form of government. Any form may be good if it is exercised in a democratic spirit, conforming to His religious teachings; it may also be bad if it counteracts His religious teachings which are required necessarily for religious persons. The only interest of His religious teaching is to lead His followers from a way of life of suffering to one of real happiness.

3. Though Buddha never seemed to denounce the existing absolutism of His lifetime, He established the Sangha--the community of Buddhist monks--which could be considered model for later demo-cratic regimes. Though the word "democracy" was never men-tioned in the government of His monks, we can learn His democratic spirit through the process of governing and the regulations of the community which issued from that process.

HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC SPIRIT IN BUDDHISM

The Establishment of the Sangha

The regulations of the Sangha are not a ready-made set prepared before its start, as St. Benedict or St. Francis of Assisi might have done for the Christian monastic orders.

Buddha started His Sangha without any prior regulations. This is understandable, because as founder of His own religion He had no need to obtain approval from a superior. He was free to evolve his attitude regarding community life, which in the end would develop a democratic character. From the acceptance of the first member of His Sangha it is clear that He emphasized the importance of the quality of life through teaching and formation.

After Buddha’s enlightenment, He directed His attention first of all to persuading the Pancavaggi (the Group of Five) to enter into His way of life. He preached to them His first sermon, known as Dhammacakkappa-vattanasutta, at their residence, the Isipatana Marigadayavana or Deer Garden, in Banares State. After the sermon only one of the five, Kondanna understood thoroughly the meaning of life and requested to be admitted as His follower. Buddha accepted him by saying "Come, O Bhikkhu, well-taught in doctrine, lead a holy life for the sake of the complete extinction of suffering."1 In this way Kondanna was admitted as the first Venerable Buddhist Monk. During the first rainy season, 60 monks were admitted by Buddha Himself into His monastic order or Sangha.

During this earliest period, there were practically no regulations, for all the monks had good will and a firm intention to follow the life-style of Buddha Himself. All were under the direct inspiration of Bud-dha who presided like a loving Father over his beloved sons.

One of the Prescriptions of Buddha, for example, runs as follows: "I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that only a learned, competent Bhikkhu who has completed ten years, or more than ten years, may confer the Upasampada Ordination."2 In such a way, more and more regulations were prescribed by Buddha, to be observed by all the Bukkhus of His Sangha.

The democratic spirit during this period was one of equality among the monks who might come from any caste and status in society: princes, nobles, brahmins, vaisayas and outcasts. All became equal once they were ordained monks. They were differentiated, how-ever, according to their years of ordination: those later ordained had to be the first to pay respect to those earlier ordained because of the supposition that the earlier ones had more experience in the monastic life than did the later ones.

During the Experimental Period

As more and more people requested to be admitted into the Sangha, the elder monks were delegated to perform the ceremony of admission and also to take the responsibility of training and supervising the novices. We do not know if Buddha delegated such powers to only one monk or to a set of monks for each community. Each delegation had to take responsibility for the community under its care in a spirit of paternal love and under the general control of Buddha Himself.

It is not surprising that during this transitory period, with the rapidly increasing number of new monks to be admitted and trained, together with the new experiences each community of monks encoun-tered, decisions had to be made for uniformity of conduct among the monks. After consultation with the senior monks, Buddha declared one after another the regulations of the whole Sangha. It can be said that most of the actual Sangha regulations resulted from particular cases which occurred to the Sangha at different times. It is believed that Ananda, Buddha’s cousin and one of the senior monks or Theras, had a good memory so as to be able to remember all the regulations and the particular circumstance that gave rise to each of them. Only after Buddha’s death were the collection of regulations reported and the Theras helped Him analyze and rearrange them into a systematic collection, known later as the Vinaya Pitaka.

Final Development of Sangha

After a certain period of experimentation with the Sangha Or-ganization through delegations under the direct control of Buddha Himself, Buddha saw that his Sangha had matured sufficiently to stand on its own feet. He let it go, being conscious that in time He would have to leave it behind--though surely it would have been better to see the result while He was living with them, so that, had any difficulty occurred, He would be able to suggest a wiser solution. He transferred His absolute authority over the Sangha to all the members of Sangha, so that they might all together decide how to apply the Sangha regulations to each particular case. These were the regulations all of them consented to accept in common as their Constitution on the day of their ordination into the Sangha.

Buddha then convened the Bhikkhus and proclaimed to them this Announcement or natti:

Let the Sangha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N.N. desires to receive the Upasampada ordination from the venerable N.N. with the venerable N.N. as his Uppajjhaya. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha confer on N.N. the Upasampada ordination with N.N. as Upajjhaya. This is the natti (announcement). Let the Sangha, reverend Sirs, hear me. This person N.N. desires to receive the Upasampada ordination from the venerable N.N. The Sangha confers on N.N. the Upasampada ordination with N.N. as Upajjhaya. Let any one of the venerable brethren who is in favor of the Upasampada ordination of N.N. with N.N. as Uppajjhaya be silent, and any one who is not in favor of it, speak. And for the second time I thus speak to you: let the Sangha etc. . . . (as before). And for the third time I thus speak to you. let the Sangha, etc. . . . (as before). N.N. has received the Upasampada ordination from the Sangha with N.N. as Uppajjhaya. The Sangha is in favor of it, therefore it is silent. Thus I understand.3

Surely this kind of democracy is a strict one, for any decision of the Sangha requires a unanimous vote. As to be silent at the moment of the vote means a vote in favor, such voting respects any kind of minority.

Such a strict democracy can be practiced within the Sangha because we can presuppose that all and each one of the monks has been well formed and has a good intention for the common welfare of the Sangha. As such democracy is appropriate to the Sangha, it has progressed continually to today.

It is to be noted that by this particular democracy, the Sangha members can vote only for the applications of regulations to particular cases. Buddha did not allow them to vote for the abolishment of the Sangha. As for the votes for change, Buddha allowed them only for minor regulations and still required a unanimous vote. During the Buddha’s lifetime, no such voting had ever been heard of. However, this allowance was like a time bomb within the Sangha, awaiting explosion at any time after Buddha’s death.

The adjective "minor" is very imprecise when it qualifies the noun "precept". Any change of precept with the intention of "adaptation for the better" can be considered a "minor precept". Such inter-pretation happened many times after the death of Buddha, leading to the split of Buddhism into Hinayana and Mahayana, and to the split of each into a number of sects until today.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BUDDHIST DEMOCRACY

1. Buddha’s words are the final appeal. Buddha did not delegate any person or any group of persons to approve the actions, nor to modify the regulations. At His death, the oral teaching of Buddha came to an end. No one had the right to add or to subtract a word of Buddha. What disciples can do is to interpret and clarify the Buddha’s words. Buddha’s words are like a constitution which came from Buddha alone. He might consult in order to obtain opinions, but He always gave the final decision, and no one could change it. Therefore the demo-cracy of the Buddhist Sangha is limited to the application of the regulations, and does not extend to making and modifying the regu-lations, except when a regulation is minor and the community unani-mously gives it consent by silent vote.

This means that the Sangha government is absolutist in the formation of the Constitution, but democratic in its application. The Mahaparinibbana Suttanta expresses the vision and the reason of Buddha:

I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine in respect of the truths. Ananda, the Tathagata has no such thing as a closed-fist teacher who keeps some things back. Surely, Ananda, should there be any one who harbors the thought, ‘It is I who will lead the brotherhood’, or ‘The order is dependent upon me’, that is that he should lay down instructions in any matter concerning the order. Now the Tathagata, Ananda, thinks not that it is he who should lead the brotherhood, or that the order is dependent upon him.4

Therefore, O Ananda, be ye lamps unto yourselves. Be ye a refuge to yourselves. Betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Hold fast as a refuge to the truth. Look not for refuge to any one besides yourselves.5

It may be, Ananda, that in some of you the thought may arise, ‘The word of the master is ended, we have no teacher more.’ But it is not thus, Ananda, that you should regard it. The truths and the rules of the Order which I have set forth and laid down for you all, let them, after I am gone, be the Teacher to you.6

It is to be noted that the Sangha Constitution or the Vinaya should be distinguished from the Universal and Eternal Dhamma which cannot be determined at will or modified by any convenience or inconvenience. Only the Vinaya can be modified according to their appropriateness to the circumstances. Nevertheless, even here He allowed for modifications with regard only to the minor Vinayas.

2. All monks have equal rights regardless of family background or personal prestige. In the Indian context of Buddha’s time, caste discrimination was taken strongly into account. But Buddha’s Vinaya went against the current and this became the strong point of His Sangha Community. People of all castes found equal right of recog-nition in His Sangha and equal right to the perfect purification or Nibbana status. Read the following passage and imagine a triumphant tone of Buddha in pronouncing it:

Just, O Bhikkhus, as the great rivers -

that is to say, the Ganga, the Yamuna,

the Aciravati, the Sarabhu, and the Mahi -

when they have fallen into the great ocean,

renounce their name and lineage and are

thereceforth reckoned as the great ocean,

Just so, O Bhikkus, do these four castes -

the Khattiyas, the Brahmans, the Vessa, and

the Suddas - when they have gone forth from

the world under the doctrine and discipline proclaimed by

the Tathagata, renounce their names and lineage, and

enter into the number of the Sakyaputtiya Samanas.7

Any monk who has been such for a lesser period is to venerate the older one. This means that an outcast monk is to be venerated by a monk from the Brahmin caste, if the former has a longer period of monkshood. Such a practice could not be imagined at that time outside the Buddhist community.

3. A fraternal democracy is recommended. Buddha recommended six conditions for his monastic community. Buddha seems to have known how difficult this was, for in stating this He did not use the categorical imperative, but a persuasive form:

So long as the brethren shall persevere in kindness of action, speech, and thought among the saints, both in public and private--so long as they shall divide without partiality, and share in common with the upright and the holy, all such things as they receive in accordance with just provisions of the order, down even to the mere contents of a begging bowl--so long as the brethren shall live among the saints in the practice, both in public and in private, of those virtues which are pro-ductive of freedom, and praised by the wise; which are untarnished by the desire of future life, or by the belief in the efficacy of outward acts; and which are conductive to high and holy thoughts--so long as the brethren shall live among the saints, cherishing, both in public and in private, that noble and saving faith which leads to the compete destruction of the sorrow of him who acts according to it. So long may the brethren be expected not to decline but to prosper--so long as these six conditions shall continue to exist among the brethren, so long as they are instructed in these six conditions, so long may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.8

4. Unus inter pares (one among equals) democracy is an ideal of the Sangha. Buddha’s words: "Think not that it is he who should lead the brotherhood"9 show that, though the eldest in years of monkshood is venerated by all the other monks, he is not by any means the leader of the whole community in the administrative affairs. He is only one among equals. To conduct an administrative affair, any monk of any number of years of monkshood may be chosen by the community. He is still one among the equals and has to venerate those monks of his community who have been monks for a longer period.

CONCLUSION

What is the best regime? This question was proposed to Jesus by the Pharisees: "Is it right to pay tax to Caesar?" which implies: Is the absolutism of Caesar the right regime? Neither founder, Buddha or Jesus, gave a direct answer, but proposed an ideal instead. "Dhamma will be your absolute leader", said Buddha; "Who is leader, let him serve", said Jesus. Dhammika regime as well as a service regime is not a form of government, but an attitude. Any regime that holds such an attitude, brings peace to the country and welfare to the people.

Nowadays, democracy is held in high esteem; we rightly join in this but should not be enchanted by the mere word "democracy". A Thai proverb warns: "A word as a word is it much important?" Any word can be abused to cheat the people in unclear politics. Experience tell us that "Christian Democracy" is not always the best party; the same would be true of a Buddhist Democratic party if one were ever to exist. If now we prefer to use the word "democracy" for a way of governing the people, let it be practiced with the attitude and spirit of Dhamma and of loving service, as Buddha and Jesus recommended. Buddha’s Rajadhammakatha speaks thus:

Kacchapinanca macchinam

Kukkutinanca dhenunam

Puttaposo yatha toti

Tatha maccesu Rajunam

As turtle and fish spare

As hen and cow nurture

Of their young ones care

Of their human sheep so a pastor.

Philosophy Department

Assumption University

Thailand

NOTES

1. F. Max Muller, ed. Sacred Books of The East (Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1968), vol. XIII, p. 97.

2. Ibid., p. 178.

3. F. Max Muller, ed. N. 43, pp. 169-170.

4. Ibid., n. 42, pp. 36-37.

5. Ibid., p. 38.

6. Ibid., p. 112.

7. Ibid., n. 61, p. 304.

8. Ibid., n. 42, pp. 10-11.

9. Max Muller, Vol. 42, p. 372.

DISCUSSION

Civil society raises the issue of the need for authority in social life. In Confucian cultures authority is exercised by ritual, which in turn has some relation to heavenly authority. Buddhism too agrees upon the need for authority. In the Theravada tradition authority remains in the words and action of the Buddha. Mahayana Buddhism also locates this essentially in the teaching of the Buddha, but allows for greater adaptation to circumstances, provided this continues to aim at the perfection of life.

Buddhism distinguished the monks from those living in the world. The life of the monks was subject to many precepts (217 for men and 358 for women). Those living in the world followed a lesser and varied number of precepts according to their advancement. They found guidance from the monks with regard to their spiritual welfare and in return were to support the minimum needs of the monks.

With regard to the political order Buddhism does not propose any particular regime, but stays where it is welcome and moves on where it is not. For civil society, however, and the quality of its life Buddhism is a main proponent of tolerance. This is the basis of civil life and is the predominant note of the 10 principles Buddha prescribed for kings.
In Thailand the king is, but need not be, Buddhist, as is 95 percent of the population. All religions are supported, but great em-phasis is placed upon tolerance for others by those in the majority and from others by those in the minorities (4 percent Muslim and .05 percent Christian). This tolerance is not merely passive, i.e., waiting for others to become Buddhist, but as did

Buddhism: Thich Nhat Hanh

Buddhism: Thich Nhat Hanh

Thich Nhat Hanh, an exiled Vietnamese monk, is among the world's most respected Buddhist leaders. A monk since age 16, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967 by the Rev. Martin Luther King for his efforts to bring peace to his divided country. He also helped organize rescue missions into the 1970s for Vietnamese trying to escape political oppression. At 40, he founded Plum Village Monastery in France as a home for monks and nuns and a practice center where each year thousands of lay people, activists and refugees visit. Nhat Hanh has conducted many retreats in Europe and North America for thousands, and has written more than 75 books of prose, poetry, spiritual guidance and prayers. For at least a decade, Nhat Hanh has visited the United States every other year, drawing large multidenominational crowds. His popularity in the United States inspired the mayor of New York City to declare a Day of Reconciliation during a visit in the 1990s. Now in his 70s, Nhat Hanh is coming to America for a series of retreats, including a controversial one this month in Madison, Wisc., aimed at police and others in high-stress public service jobs called "Protecting and Serving without Stress or Fear." In September, he hopes to offer a public talk to members of Congress and a weekend retreat for the elected representatives and their families. Chat with Thich Nhat Hanh about his teachings.
Read the accompanying USA TODAY story




Comment from USATODAY.com Host: We will begin our chat with Thich Nhat Hanh momentarily.

Pawtucket, RI: Good evening: I am overwhelmed with all the sorrow that encompasses our world. What can I do that will really make a difference in the world?

Thich Nhat Hanh: The first thing we have to do is come back to ourselves. We have to recognize that we have to take care of ourselves first. It's just like on an airplane when you have to put the oxygen mask on yourself first before you put it on your child. We have to take care of ourselves before we can take care of other people.

St. Clairsville, OH: My father is quite ill right now and consequently I have been spending more time with my mother and brothers and sisters. Everyone is under a lot of stress and are emotional. I try to listen compassionately, but sometimes someone might say something negative about another family member. I do not want to get into an argument, but I do not want to continue to listen to them say unkind things about another person, either. What can you suggest as a skillful means of turning the conversation in a more positive direction? Thank you, dear Thay,for all of your wonderful teachings. Donna

Thich Nhat Hanh: The person should first be able to relax themselves, come back to their breathing and their body, become calm. Then very sincerely ask if the family can sit down together. You can tell the family that you are aware this is a stressful and difficult time, and if we can all do our best to help each other and share the difficulties in a way that is kind. Support each other as brothers and sisters.

Southgate, Michigan: How long should one meditate each day?

Thich Nhat Hanh: In our tradition, it's not a matter of sitting once or twice a day, but trying to be mindful all day long. So we try to be aware of our breathing and our footsteps all day long.

Edinburg, TX: What do I teach my children to prepare them for this world and what should I do to help this world be a better place to live?

Thich Nhat Hanh: We should teach our children how to be calm, and how to be able to be in the present moment. How to come back when they have strong emotions, how to be able to handle their strong emotions, how to be able to come back to breathing exercises or walking mindfully so they realize their emotions are not in control of them, so they can handle their emotions. (As far as the second part of your question is concerned) It comes back to knowing how to take care of yourself, be able to nourish yourself in difficult moments, be able to calm yourself, to be able to practice guidelines that help you be protected from the many difficulties in the world, from the many areas that can cause unhappiness in your life. Some sort of guideline system -- we call it mindfulness training. You need to be a model yourself for your children so they have something to learn from, something to look up to, something to be inspired by. The parents have to set themselves as examples, in the event that good or bad things happen, the parents must stop and look deeply and be calm in order to see the root and the consequence of what happened and act in a beautiful way. If the parents can do that, the children can do that. Look deeply before acting fearfully, or angrily . . . it will help the world to be better. The guideline is mindfulness. There are five guideliness: Being aware that killing causes suffering (I am determined not to kill)and I try to protect life. Second guideline: Be aware that there is a lot of social injustice, but I am determined not to take into my possession things that do not belong to me and practice generosity by sharing my time, my deep listening and material resources for those who are in need. Third guideline: Having seen so many broken families, I am determined to have only a sexual relationship with a long-term committed partner, and I also will protect children from sexual abuse. Fourth guideline: Be aware of unmindful speech which can cause suffering, be determined to speak mindfully, look deeply into the consequences of each of my words and practice listening deeply to others in order to understand them and to appropriately use my words. Fifth guideline: This concerns consumption for the mind and our body. We must be aware that unmindful consumption can cause disease and therefore we must not use intoxicants or drink alcohol, and we must eat and drink mindfully. Concerning the mind, we must be determined not to look at intoxicating books, articles, TV programs -- those that contain violence, craving and fear.

Buffalo, New York: Those of us who believe in world peace watch with dismay as daily acts of vengeance continue to rip at the flimsy fabric of peace which world leaders continue to try to drape over ancient and ongoing hatreds. It seems that every time progress is reported, it is followed by a heinous act, done by those to whom vengeance is the only option. How can we help people to turn away from ancient hatreds and fears, embrace their so-called enemies, and commit themselves to work toghether for the good of all?

Thich Nhat Hanh: People can have a process of peace education where they can learn to transform their ancient hatreds of each other by learning how to look deeply. As a world of nations we have to learn how to see each other as brother and sister nations and not to see each other as separate and something to hate. We have to want to learn about each other and support each other as a world of nations. We have had in Plum Village Isreali and Palistinian retreats. We bring them together and they practice several days of relaxing and mindful walking and breathing, and then they learn to look deeply into their situations and to use kind, gentle, careful speech. Through mindfulness and being nourished by the atmosphere they learn to be able to look deeply into each other and learn the necessity of learning to help each other instead of hating each other. There has been remarkable success with this. People in the beginning they couldn't speak to each other and in the end many, for the first time, felt there was a real hope for peace. The United Nations has the capacity to do this if we are all able to see that we can learn how to care for each other, and that as we care for each other we're really caring for ourselves. Another aspect to pay attention to is the energy of anger and vengeance, so when we get this kind of news from the media, that energy is being transferred and it can come inside of us and we can feel it toward our own administration, and that continues the hatred. We have to be careful, because the way people receive information can allow them to continue their hatred. When we're having conversations with people, with relatives and friends, on a personal level, we should not continue that energy. We can look at how we talk to family and friends about these topics. Then we can look at it on a national and international level.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Hello. I was wondering what your view on the total disrespect for our planets environment (deforestation, pollution, endangered species, etc.). It all seems too depressing and overwhelming sometimes.

Thich Nhat Hanh: We have to wake up to the fact that a lot of oil, fame and power cannot really bring happiness. This is something everyone has to wake up to. There are many people who have a lot of these things but they suffer very deeply. We have to wake up to the fact that if we have understanding and compassion it is very easy to relate to others. If we lead a very simple life, happiness is still possible. This is a basic awakening. Parents have to help young people to see this. Only with this kind of awakening will people stop exploiting the planet and using up all the resources that should belong to the next generation. That is why the media, the powerful, it is their duty to contribute to that kind of awakening. In every one of us, there are seeds that if exposed to anger and negative things will grow. We must live our lives so that only the good seeds of compassion and kindness are watered every day. The seeds of craving, anger and despair should not be watered every day. To create a safe environment is very crucial to find peace.

St. Louis Missouri: How can a simple, everyday person live a more peaceful life? What is the main thing to focus on?

Thich Nhat Hanh: He or she should offer himself or herself the kind of environment that can make it safe in light of selective waterings of the seeds. With the support of those who live around you, determine only to go in the direction of peace and brotherhood and not in the direction of cravings. When you are in a safe environment, that's when peace becomes possible. You have to protect yourself first, then your family, then the society. Then the negative energy will not manifest. When a community does this, the good seeds will be watered every day. A person must put oneself in a safe environment where peace becomes possible.

tampa, fl: please tell me if we can ever achieve an end to conflict between human beings. what must take place before this occurs? thanks, Ida

Thich Nhat Hanh: We can only reduce the number of conflicts. First, in our family. That is a big step. Without that you cannot go further. When you have peace within yourself, you can bring peace to another person; when you both have peace you can bring peace to a third person. This is the only way. We have to learn from suffering because suffering can teach us a lot. We ask the person why we suffer so much, and if we look deeply we see the roots of our suffering and then you find out that the other person is not safe or happy. To help the other person to be safe and happy you must help yourself. This is true on an international level as well: If you want your country to be safe, to be happy, you must be sure that you don't do anything to other countries that will make them lose their safety and their happiness. When you help other countries to be safe, to grow, that means you are helping yourself. Safety, peace and happiness are not individual matters. When you take care of the others, you take care of yourself -- that is what we call inter-being. It is like the right hand taking care of the left hand when the left is hurt, and the left taking care of the right when it is hurt. It is the wisdom of nondiscrimination of both hands. That is the foundation of peace and brotherhood.

West Palm Beach, Florida: How do you show a person that you love them?

Thich Nhat Hanh: Based on my experience, you can show a person that you love them if you really understand that person. Understanding means that you know what that person needs, and his or her suffering. Love cannot be possible if you do not understand well what you can do for that person and what are his or her aspirations, as well.

Jacksonville, Florida: I feel an inner need to go on a solo retreat, probably to India. While researching such places on the Internet, it seems that many options are somewhat commercialized. Do you have any advice on the direction I should take to start my journey?

Thich Nhat Hanh: Why do you have to go to India for a solo retreat? Why don't you do it at home? It's less expensive. You might want to look more closely at the idea, that you think you might find something in India or some other place, because you have to be careful with that. It could be right there in your home. To be safe, bring to your solo retreat a few books like "Peace is Every Step," "Creating True Peace," "Be Free Where You Are." I think you should know before you start you need a daily schedule. In the morning when you wake up what will you do? Then after that, what will you do? It is helpful to consult a teacher of meditation before you start your solo retreat. Sitting meditation, walking meditation, preparing your breakfast in silence, all these things you have to prepare for. How much should you eat during the solo retreat? Practice a lot of breathing, going back to the present moment -- don't think too much in the future or in the past -- transformation and healing is in the here and the now. The best place for your retreat could be Plum Village (in France), but you won't be alone there! When you are mindful and aware of your steps and your breathing, you're taking a true solo retreat. You can do that around other people, and it's very healing and transforming and nourishing.

Herndon, Virginia: For those of us who have been observing the politics in the US and countries all over the world - one can but see few examples of altruism and see mostly greed and power among most policiticians. This is really troubling especially since the government plays such an important role in our lives and most people do not realize it. How can I as an ordinary citizen help to change this in a spiritual way?

Thich Nhat Hanh: AS individuals and as a country we ahve to learn to help our elected officials and we have to look deeply to see what makes a congressman able to fulfill their deepest aspiration -- serving the public -- and what in our society pulls them away from that, just as it pulls us away. As individuals if we see what helps us a great deal, because we understand our culture, then in turn we can be of great kindness and compassion we can be of help to our congressmen to help them see and fulfill their true aspirations. To help our congressmen doesn't mean we write a protest letter. First we try to appreciate him or her, then we express the direction we think the country should go, and then we try to show him why he should move in that direction. You show him that you appreciate him, even if you did not vote for him. I will lead a retreat for congressmen on Sept. 10 on Capitol Hill in the Library of Congress at 7 p.m., and then a weekend retreat Sept. 12-13 for members of congress and their families. Please email your congressman and encourage them to attend this retreat. You may have the insight into what their country can do, so you have to share your light with other citizens. That is why seeking to bring about a collective awakening is crucial. You may lead people in the field of education, or journalism, to provoke that kind of collective awakening. Your congressmen will only listen to you when you are great in numbers. If you have the energy of faith and if you are supported by a number of friends with the same kind of insight you can move forward with this collective awakening. Only that can change out situation. Everyone is capable of contributing to that awakening, and if every day you can do something in that direction you will not be victims of despair.

portland, or: Do you think whether the war the U.S. launched against Iraq last March a legitimate one?

Thich Nhat Hanh: The United States started the war with the conviction that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not found them, so the war is not justified in the opinion of the world. Now America will have to occupy Iraq for a long time. I believed that President Bush and his administration have an awakening Buddha nature in them, and they should help watering that seed of awakening, that seed in our president. We should ask him and his administration to courageously take action in order to bring back authority and prestige to America as a great nation. And President Bush can say "We are sorry, we had a wrong perception about Iraq. There are no weapons of mass destruction. But we did remove a dictator and that is not bad. But now we want to hand the situation over to the United Nations and we will contribute our best to the UN to see that Iraq has a good government of duly elected people." That would be a very wonderful way for America to stop being caught in the situation. There are superpowers in the world, and they should be urged to redesign the UN into a real peacekeeping organization, and America can do a lot to fulfill that dream of a lot of us, so the UN becomes a real body of keeping peace. Then when the UN becomes a solid body of nations, then they can intervene very well in situations like the Middle East. In the family, every time two brothers fight each other, the other members of the family come and stop the fighting and bring about reconciliation. This should have been done in the Middle East by the community of all nations. But we have allowed this to go on for a long time. They have expected America to solve the problem by itself without the support of other nations. But America can strengthen the chance of peace in the world by allowing other nations to build the UN into a real peace organization. America is a mighty nation and can help to realize that dream for all of us -- a powerful UN could solve the problems in the Middle East in a few months.

Comment from Thich Nhat Hanh: I feel that the answer to the last question is very important. It can save the world. All the nations in the world would applaud that act. The United States can withdraw with prestige. It could save a lot of lives.

Comment from USATODAY.com Host: That's all the time we have for tonight. We had many questions we did not have time to answer, unfortunately, but perhaps we can persuade Thich Nhat Hanh to return to USATODAY.com again and try to answer more of your questions. Thank you for participating