Dhammapada
Verse 172 Sammajjanatthera Vatthu The Diligent Illumine The World

Verse 172. The Diligent Illumine The World

Whoso was heedless formerly
but later lives with heedfulness
illuminates the world
as moon when free of clouds.

Explanation: An individual may have been deluded in the past. But
later corrects his thinking and becomes a disillusioned person. He, therefor,
is like the moon that has come out from behind a dark cloud; thus, he
illuminates the world.

Dhammapada
Verse 172
Sammajjanatthera Vatthu

Yo ca pubbe pamajjit va

Verse 172: He, who has been formerly unmindful, but is mindful
later on, lights up the world with the light of Magga Insight as does the moon
freed from clouds.

The
Story of Thera Sammajjana

While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
(172) of this book, with reference to Thera Sammajjana.

Thera Sammajjana spent most of his time sweeping the precincts of
the monastery. At that time, Thera Revata was also staying at the monastery;
unlike Sammajjana, Thera Revata spent most of his time in meditation or deep
mental absorption. Seeing Thera Revata’s behaviour, Thera Sammajjana thought
the other thera was just idling away his time. Thus, one day Sammajjana went to
Thera Revata and said to him, “You are being very lazy, living on the food
offered out of faith and generosity; don’t you think you should sometimes sweep
the floors or the compound or some other place?” To him, Thera Revata
replied, “Friend, a bhikkhu should not spend all his times sweeping. He
should sweep early in the morning, then go out on the alms-round. After the
meal, contemplating his body he should try to perceive the true nature of the
aggregates, or else, recite the texts until nightfall. Then he can do the
sweeping again if he so wishes.” Thera Sammajjana strictly followed the
advice given by Thera Revata and soon attained arahatship.

Other bhikkhus noticed some rubbish piling up in the compound and
they asked Sammajjana why he was not sweeping as much as he used to, and he
replied, “When I was not mindful, I was all the time sweeping; but now I
am no longer unmindful.” When the bhikkhus heard his reply they were
sceptical; so they went to the Buddha and said, “Venerable Sir! Thera
Sammajjana falsely claims himself to be an arahat; he is telling lies.” To
them the Buddha said, “Sammajjana has indeed attained arahatship; he is
telling the truth.”

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

International Relations and Peace Studies

http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol11_1/11n1Yeh.pdf

THE
WAY TO PEACE: A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE

Theresa
Der-lan Yeh

Abstract

This article provides a survey of the
Buddhist vision of peace in the light of peace studies. According to

the Buddha’s teaching of Dependent
Origination, everything, including the psychophysical compound

that we call individual, exists only in
relation to other beings and things and undergoes constant changes

responding and reacting to them. The
next section examines the Buddhist perspective on the causes of

violence and ways to prevent violence
and realize peace. The last section explores the potentials of

Buddhist contributions to the
peacemaking efforts and the promotion of a culture of peace in today’s

world. Believing that the root of
violence is located within the mind, Buddhism has placed a greater

urgency upon inner reflection. With the
awakening to the interdependent reality, selfish compulsive

responses will be replaced by
loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. On the

behavioral level, one practices peace daily
by observing the Five Precepts. To prevent in-group disputes,

the Buddha teaches the six principles
of cordiality in any community. As for inter-group or international

affairs, Buddhist scriptures are rift
with stories that teach nonviolent intervention. The article concludes

the Buddhist worldview is surprisingly
in accordance with the insights of peace studies in its processoriented

paradigm, its insistence on peace by
peaceful means, and its holistic framework of peace, which

would play a vital role in the efforts
of bringing the culture of peace into existence around the world.

Introduction

Buddhism has long been celebrated as a
religion of peace and non-violence. With

its increasing vitality in regions
around the world, many people today turn to Buddhism

for relief and guidance at the time
when peace seems to be a deferred dream more than

ever, with the wars in the Middle East
and Africa, and the terrorist activities expanding

into areas where people never expected
that scope of violence before such as Bali,

London, and New York. Yet this is never
a better time to re-examine the position of

Buddhism, among those of other world
religions, on peace and violence in the hope that

it can be accorded in the global
efforts to create new sets of values regarding the ways

people manage conflict and maintain
peace via nonviolent means.

This article tends to provide a review
of the Buddhist vision of peace in the light

of peace studies. It also addresses the
Buddhist perspective on the causes of violence and

ways to prevent violence and to realize
peace. The last section explores the potentials of Buddhist contributions to
the peacemaking efforts and the promotion of a culture of peace

in today’s world. Buddhism, having
enjoyed a long history and enrichment by

generations of people in various
traditions, ranges north and south with branches across

many cultures and regions. However, a
common core of Buddha’s teaching and practice

is observed in major Buddhist
traditions and considered essentials of Buddhism. In this

article, the term Buddhism is used to
refer to the common core teachings across the

current major traditions of Buddhism.

The
Concept of Peace in the Buddhist Worldview

Buddhists believe that the Buddha
(meaning “the awakened”) awakened to the

laws of the universe, which are said to
be operating eternally, whether the Buddha

discovered them or not. The most
fundamental among these laws is the law of karma, or,

in Buddhist terminology, dependent
origination, which explains the genuine condition of

things that exist in the universe. In
its simplest straightforward form, dependent

origination claims that anything
(including sentient and insentient beings) can only exist

in relation to everything else; if the
causes of its existence disappear, then it ceases to

exist. Nothing can exist on its own and
everything is dependent on other things. All

elements, all entities, all phenomena
are thus related directly and indirectly to one another

in the universe. Any change in this
huge interconnected compound of existence would

definitely, eventually exerts influence
on everything else. Derived from the principle of

dependent origination is the Buddhist
view of the cosmic world and the human being.

At the macro level, the uni verse is
represented and seen from a Buddhist

viewpoint as a network of jewels, an
interconnected and interdependent web of nodes,

each of which simultaneously reflects
all other hundreds of thousands of nodes in the

web. All other nodes would
simultaneously reflect this specific node. This network is

named “the Indra’s Net” in the Avatamsaka
Sutra (Taisho 9: 278). Each node can contain

another web-like universe within itself
and so forth with an infinite number of webs, i.e.

universes. In this vast, endless
cosmos, everything is still interrelated even in the most

remote sense. According to the Buddhist
beliefs, many of us cannot see or be aware of

this relatedness as we are confined by
all sorts of limitations due to our past experiences

and actions. Yet the connections are
always there.

Down to the micro level, the human
being is viewed as a string of processes

governed by the principle of dependent
origination. Since everything within a human

being (including physicality and
thoughts) depends on other things to exist, nothing

within this human being is genuinely
independent (autonomous). This doctrine of no-self

(Pali: anatta; Skt. anatman),
however, does not rule out the existence of temporary

aggregates capable of responding to
environmental stimuli, i.e., our body and mind.

Also, it recognizes the diversity among
all beings and the uniqueness of each since each

being undergoes constant changes while
responding and reacting in its own way to all other beings and things around.
The ever-changing quality in any beings denotes a vast

capacity for change and development
possible in either directions, for better or worse.

Yet the potentials to transform the
status quo are always looming in the horizon.

The principle of dependent origination
and the Buddhist view of the universe and

the human beings undergird an
imperative for people who realize the interdependent

nature of their existence and the
interconnection among all things — they would develop

a strong sense of responsibility for
their own behaviors, as well as appreciation and

empathy for others. It is from this
realization of the true nature of existence that nonharming,

compassionate, altruistic action would
arise. In the openings of many sutras,

the Buddha, the one who awakened to the
cosmic reality, is described as naturally

expounding four basic mental faculties
(Brahmaviharas, “Divine Abidings”; also named

appamanacetovimutti, “immeasurable deliverance of mind”):
loving-kindness (metta),

compassion (karuna), sympathetic
joy (mudita), and equanimity (upekkha). The Buddha

teaches that these four mental
faculties, together with the Four Noble Truths, are to be

cultivated by all bhikkhus (Skt.
bhiksus) and later all Buddhists through reflecting upon

the sentient beings of infinite numbers
who are on their way to become a buddha (see

Taisho 1: 26). Yet the altruistic mental
faculties are combined with the wisdom

developed along with the gradually
deepening reflection. This is the guiding principle of

all Buddhist practices – the middle
way. Through these mindful actions conducted with

moderation can an ideal Buddhist state
of existence come true—living in harmony with

everything (sentient or non-sentient)
in the universe.

This Buddhist way of looking at the
world comes, in the opinion of Johan Galtung

(1993: 23), a Norwegian peace studies
pioneer, closest to the one dynamic, complex

peace theory he proposes, in which the
world is “precisely a process based on diversity in

symbiotic (mutually influential)
interaction.” In this world of multi-leveled plurality,

according to Galtung, peace is not a
stable, end state but a more interactive process of a

series of changing and balancing acts,
an on-going dialectic between our actions and the

world. This contingent view of peace,
as shared by many peace scholars and activists in

the field, is similar to what Buddhist
perceives peace to be. In fact, the complexity and

the collectiveness in causes leading to
peace or war have long been recognized in the

morphological construction of those
words. According to Sanskrit dictionaries

(Hirakawa, 1997; Ogiwara, 1979), the
words samnipata, samgri, and samgama, all refer

to the concept of peace. These words
share the root sam-vii meaning people do things

together, which is also shared by the
Sanskrit wo rd referring to war (samit). On the basis

of this morphological derivation, both
peace and war are produced by the collective,

rather than individuals. No single nor
simple explanation of what builds peace or create

war would suffice.

The view of peace as a collective
product is well in line with the Buddhist

worldview based on the principle of
dependent origination which emphasizes the mutual

influence of all the elements involved
in any situation. With this interdependent frame of

reference, Buddhists would prefer a
holistic view of peace, instead of peace in separate contexts such as schools,
families, or the environment. This is again very close to what

many peace studies scholars have
advocated as the ultimate vision of peace (Brock-Utne,

1997; Galtung, 1993; Galtung &
Ikeda, 1995; Turpin & Kurtz, 1997). From the holistic

perspective, the connection between the
concept of negative and positive peace becomes

clear and imperative in the light of
the Buddhist law of nature, dependent origination.

Absence of war and direct violence only
constitutes a temporary peace if there is no

justice present in the socio-economic
international structure. The injustice and the

violence causing suffering in every
other node in the web of existence would inevitably

and eventually weigh the negative peace
away. Though the negative peace is only

temporary, unstable and fragile, it is
absolutely indispensable on the way to the positive

peace. Since each human being and each
level of systems are interconnected, to create a

positive peace compels efforts of
everyone at every level of human structures. The

Buddhist view of the interconnected
world demands that the ideal of world peace is less

rhetoric at the negotiation tables
among some “superpowers” in the international level

than starting a personal transformation
of one’s daily living. And this peacemaking effort

is a continued striving at the every
very moment because of the dynamic, constant

changing nature of all the possible
causal forces in this world.

Buddhist
Perspective on Causes of Violence/Conflict/War

Buddhism, being a religion with a claim
of the reality of existence, has well

acknowledged causal forces that could
constitute the hindrance to a harmonious living on

every level of human actions. Violence
and conflict, from the perspective of Buddhist

principle of dependent origination,
are, same with everything else in the world, a product

of causes and conditions. To eliminate
violence and conflict, all we have to do is to

resolve the underlying causes and
conditions. Using human body/consciousness as a

division, the Buddhist analysis of the
causes of violence and conflict is arrayed along

three domains: the external, the
internal, and the root (Shih Yin-shun, 1980).

The External Causes of Violence and
Conflicts

The Buddha looks at the external causes
of conflict as consequences derived from

a general orientation common to all
living beings: avoiding harm and obtaining

happiness. Anything contrary to this
would result in disturbing one’s peace and lead to

conflict. If people want to live an
ultimately happy life with no harms toward themselves

at all, the Buddha teaches, they should
start with avoiding causing harm to others,

physically and verbally at the personal
level, since people are afraid of physical violence

and resent harsh words; and the
physical and verbal harm we inflict upon others usually

leads to hate and conflicts that, in
turn, would bring harm to us and cost our happiness.

As stated in one
Buddhist Scripture,

http://www.bluepinebooks.com/peace-justice.htm

Buddhist Exploration of Peace and Justice
Edited by Chanju Mun & Ronald S. Green

They delivered
special speeches, presented articles or attended as panel members. The Most
Venerable Uihyeon Seo, President of the Korean Buddhist Jogye Order and Chair
of the Federation of Korean Buddhist Sects, Mr. Daejung Gim, currently
opposition leader of the Democratic Party and later President of the Republic
of Korea, and Dr. Byong-chun Min, President of the Dongguk University hosted
the dinner party during the seminar respectively.

The titles and
academic affiliations of participants are listed according to their status in
1991, when the fifth seminar was held. Among them, there are many local, Korean
participants including: Mr. Eun Koh, Korea’s admired poet, novelist and
democratic leader; Professor Yongjeong Gim, Vice President of the Dongguk
University; Mr. Jiha Gim, the nationally renowned poet and democratic leader;
Dr. Hak-joon Kim, Chief Assistant to the President for Policy Research; Dr.
Byong-chun Min, President of the Dongguk University; Mr. Wan-il Park, President
of the Federation of Korean Lay Buddhist Associations; Ven. Wolju Song, Former
President of the Federation of Korean Buddhist Sects; Professor Jae-ryong Shim,
Department of Philosophy, Seoul National University; Dr. Eul-byong Chang,
President of the Sunggyunkwan University; Dr. Ki-young Lee, President of the
Korean Institute for Buddhist Studies; Professor Byeongjo Jeong, Department of
Ethics, Dongguk University; Ven. Jin-wol Lee; Ven. In-hwan Chae, Director of
the Korean Buddhist Research Institute, Dongguk University; Professor Seungjik
Hong, Director of the Center for Asian Affairs, Korea University; Professor
Useong Heo, Department of Philosophy, Kyung Hee University and others.

Many people
participated in this seminar from the United States and one from Canada as
follows: Professor Glenn D. Paige, Department of Political Science, University
of Hawaii - Manoa; Professor Sung-bae Park, Program in Korean Studies,
Department of Comparative Studies, State University of New York - Stony Brook;
Professor David J. Kalupahana, Department of Philosophy, University of Hawaii -
Manoa; Professor Jamie Hubbard, Department of Religious Studies, Smith College;
Ms. Jean Sadako King, Former Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii;
Professor David Chappell, Department of Religious Studies, University of Hawaii
- Manoa; Ven. Daewon Ki, Abbot of the Dae Won Sa Buddhist Temple of Hawaii;
Professor George Bond, Department of Religious Studies, Northwestern
University; Professor Bernard Faure, Department of Religious Studies, Stanford
University; Professor Taisetsu Unno, Department of Religious Studies, Smith
College; Mr. J. C. Cleary, worldwide famous writer and translator; Professor
Padmanabh S. Jaini, Department of South Asian Studies, University of California
- Berkeley; Professor Graeme MacQueen, Department of Religious Studies,
McMaster University, Canada and others.

There were many
participants from Asia including the following: Professor Tadashige Takamura,
Director of the Peace Research Institute, Soka University, Japan; Professor
Hiroharu Seki, Dean of the Faculty of International Relations, Ritsumeikan
University, Japan; Ven. Medagoda Sumanatissa, Principal of the International
Theravada Buddhist Centre, Sunethra Maha Devi (University) Privena,
Boralesgamuwa, Sri Lanka; Professor Suwanna Satha-Anand, Department of
Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; Dr. Chatsumarn
Kabilsingh, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat
University, Thailand; K. S. Vimala Devi, G. Ramachandran Institute of
Nonviolence, India; N. Radhakrishnan, Director of the Gandhi Smriti &
Darshan Samiti, India; Professor Baoxu Zhao, Department of International
Politics, Beijing University, China; Professor Jiwen Du, Institute for Research
on World Religions, the Chinese Academy of Social Science, China; Ven. Thich
Minh Chau, Vice President of the ABCP (Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace) and
Vice Chairman of the Vietnamese Buddhist Sangha, Vietnam; Dr. G. Lubsantseren,
Secretary General, ABCP, Mongolia and so on.

Several people
attended this seminar from Europe as follows: Dr. Johan Galtung, Professor of
Peace Studies, Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii -
Manoa and Olof Palme Professor of Peace Studies, HSFR, Sweden; Professor Sanje
D. Dylykov, Institute of Oriental Studies, Academy of Sciences of the USSR and
Vice President of the World Fellowship of Buddhists, USSR; Dr. Eremey Parnov,
President of the European Society of Science Fiction, USSR; Mr. Erdem Mytypov,
Secretary, Central Religious Board of Soviet Buddhists, Datsan Ivolginsk,
Buryat ASSR and so forth.

This book is divided
into two parts: “Special Speeches” and “Buddhist Explorations of
Peace and Justice.” In the first part, there are five special speeches by
five Korean dignitaries. First, Byong-chun Min presented “Welcoming
Address”; second, Daewon Ki’s “Buddhism’s Role in Modern
Society”; third, Eun Koh’s “What is Buddhism to Peace?”; fourth,
Eul-byong Chang’s “World Peace, Korean Unification and Democracy”;
and fifth, Wan-il Park, “Social Function of Buddhism.” Unfortunately,
we were not able to include some of the special speeches delivered in Korean
without English translations, by some of the Korean dignitaries.

The second part of
the book contains twenty-three articles. Of the original contributions, some
valuable articles in this group also had to be omitted. Since the time of the
seminar, some presenters have passed away. Others could not be reached to
review their articles for publication. The article by the late Ki-young Rhi has
been included in this book even though there are no footnotes. The book also
includes an article by Dr. Hak-joon Kim even though it is outdated in its
discussion of the international situation surrounding the Korean peninsula in
late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Even so, the article is very good for readers to
understand the ROK’s policies to build a peaceful Northeast Asia just after the
Cold War period. General articles on peace and justice in Buddhist contexts are
arranged in the earlier part and articles related to Korean Buddhism in the
later part of the book.

This is the most
comprehensive book on the theme of peace and justice in Buddhist contexts to
date. The number of distinguished contributors nearly equally came from the two
major Buddhist traditions, Theravada and Mahayana. The array of speeches and
articles thoroughly investigate peace and justice from many different Buddhist
traditions.

Ven. Daewon Ki, abbot
of Dae Won Sa Buddhist Temple of Hawaii, held seven international seminars on
Buddhism and Leadership for Peace, which have gained worldwide repute for
leading academic discussions on the subject. Of them, the fifth seminar
comprehensively explored ways to put Buddhist thought into social practice for
peace and justice. The scope of the fifth seminar was the widest among them.
More than sixty peace activists and Buddhist scholars from thirteen nations
participated and discussed peace and justice.

Peace
activists, Buddhists and non-Buddhists, may draw upon the academic information
and the knowledge shared by these profound thinkers, to build peace and promote
social justice in this struggling and problematic world. The book is intended
for social scientists, peace activists, Buddhist scholars, engaged Buddhists
and all people concerned about social conditions. We hope they may incorporate
Buddhist wisdom on peace and justice to broaden their understanding and to
discover ways of bring about happiness in this world of conflict and injustice.

Contributors

[NOTE: The titles and
academic institutions listed in association with the contributors represent the
positions they held in 1995, that is, at the time of the seventh seminar.]

Dr. Byong-chun Min, President, Dongguk
University, Seoul, ROK

Ven. Daewon Ki, Abbot, Dae Won Sa Buddhist Temple
of Hawaii, USA

Mr. Eun Koh, Korea’s admired poet,
novelist and democratic leader

Dr. Eul-byong Chang, President,
Sunggyunkwan University, Seoul, ROK

Mr. Wan-il Park, President, Federation of
Korean Lay Buddhist Associations, Seoul, ROK

Dr. Hak-joon Kim, Chief Assistant to the
President for Policy Research, Seoul, ROK

Prof. Jae-ryong Shim, Department of
Philosophy, Seoul National University, Seoul, ROK

Ven. Jin-wol Lee, Dharmic Teacher, Dae Won
Sa Buddhist Temple of Hawaii, USA

Ven. Dr. In-hwan Chae, Director, Korean
Buddhist Research Institute, Dongguk University, Seoul, ROK

Dr. Ki-young Lee, President, Korean
Institute for Buddhist Studies, Seoul, ROK

Dr. Sung-bae Park, Director, Program in
Korean Studies, Department of Comparative Studies, State University of New York
- Stony Brook, USA

Prof. David J. Kalupahana, Department of
Philosophy, University of Hawaii - Manoa, USA

Prof. Jamie Hubbard, Department of Religious
Studies, Smith College, USA

Ms. Jean Sadako King, Former Lieutenant
Governor of the State of Hawaii, USA

Prof. David Chappell, Department of
Religious Studies, University of Hawaii - Manoa, USA

Prof. George Bond, Department of Religious
Studies, Northwestern University, USA

Mr. J. C. Cleary, worldwide famous writer
and translator

Prof. Padmanabh S. Jaini, Department of
South Asian Studies, University of California - Berkeley, USA

Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Department of
Religious Studies, McMaster University, Canada

Prof. Tadashige Takamura, Director, Peace
Research Institute, Soka University, Japan

Ven. Medagoda Sumanatissa, Principal,
International Theravada Buddhist Centre, Sunethra Maha Devi (University)
Privera, Boralesgamuwa, Sri Lanka

Prof. Chatsumarn Kabilsingh, Department of
Philosophy, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand

Prof. Suwanna Satha-Anand, Department of
Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

K. S. Vimala Devi, G. Ramachandran
Institute of Nonviolence, India

N. Radhakrishnan, Director, Gandhi
Smriti and Darshan Samiti, India

Prof. Baoxu Zhao, Department of
International Politics, Beijing University, China

Prof. Jiwen Du, Institute for Research on
World Religions, Chinese Academy of Social Science, China

Ven. Thich Minh Chau, Vice President of the
ABCP (Asian Buddhist Conference for Peace) and Vice Chairman of the Vietamese
Buddhist Sangha, Vietnam

Dr. G. Lubsantseren, Secretary General,
ABCP, Mongolia

Dr. Eremey Parnov, President, European
Society of Science Fiction, USSR

Coeditors

Ven. Chanju Mun is the founder and chief
editor of Blue Pine Books and is currently teaching East Asian Buddhist Studies
at the University of the West in Los Angeles. He received a Ph.D. in Buddhist
Studies from the University of Wisconsin - Madison in 2002 and a Master’s
Degree in Philosophy from Seoul National University in 1991. He has been a
researcher at exiled Tibetan Drepung Monastic University in South India and at
the University of Tokyo. His recent publications include The History of
Doctrinal Classification in Chinese Buddhism: A Study of the Panjiao Systems
(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2006), “Tibetan Monastic
Education Curriculum and its Theoretical Background” (Buddhist
Soteriology, 2005), “Wonhyo (617-686): A Critic of Sectarian Doctrinal
Classifications” (Hsi Lai Journal of Humanistic Buddhism 6, 2005) and
“Historical Introduction to Minjung Buddhism (Korean Liberation
Buddhism)” (Kankoku bukkyo semina - 9, 2003) and others.

Dr. Ronald S. Green is editor of Blue Pine
Books, USA. He received a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from the University of
Wisconsin - Madison in 2003. He also holds a Master of Arts Degree in Japanese
Literature from the University of Oregon and a Master of Science Degree in
Sociology from Virginia Tech. In addition to his interest in engaged Buddhism,
his research focuses on the lives and practices of East Asain Buddhists past
and present.

All fear death.

None are unafraid of sticks and knifes.

Seeing yourself in others,

Don’t kill don’t harm

(Dhammapada, 18; translated by
the author from Taisho 4: 210).

Bad words blaming others.

Arrogant words humiliating others.

From these behaviors

Come hatred and resentme nt.

…

Hence conflicts arise,

Rendering in people malicious thoughts

(Dhammapada, 8; translated by
the author from Taisho 4: 210).

And these malicious thoughts would, in
due term, result in harm upon us since none are

really exempt from the influences of
all others, including the people we harmed. The

Buddhist principle of dependent
origination crystallizes the imperative of many peace

workers’ advocacy for nonviolent
interpersonal communication and interactions as they

are indispensable to what human pursue
– a life of happiness. That is, practicing

nonviolence in speech and action would
ultimately benefit the practitioner.

In larger contexts, Buddhism recognizes
the indirect form of violence in the social

systems to be external causes of
conflicts as well. Violence, conflict and war caused by

injustice in political and economic
structures bring even more harms to people on a grand

scale (Shih Yin-shun, 1980; Sivarksa,
1992; Sumanatissa, 1991). How to promote human

rights and equality along the social,
legal, political, and economic dimensions of our

collective structures, not for the
benefits of ourselves but for all’s, thus becomes part of

the Buddhist mission to eliminate the
potential causal forces of violence and peace.

Recognizing the material needs for
sustaining human living, Buddhism postulates the

principle of Middle Way as a criterion
in making decisions on all levels of activities and

encourages frugality as a positive
virtue. The relentless pursuit of economic development

and personal property regardless of
environmental or moral consequences is considered

not in accordance with the Middle Way
since it destroys the balance between

consumption and resources, as well as
material gain and spiritual growth.

The Internal Causes of Violence and
Conflicts

Albeit external verbal and physical
wrongdoings as well as social injustice are

causing conflicts and violence,
Buddhism contends that these behaviors and structures

originate all from the state of human
mind, since the violence and injustice are responses

toward external stimuli produced by
people’s inner mind operation. That is, the deeper causes of any conflict lie
internally in the mental operations within each being. For

example, confronted with the threat of
physical and verbal harm, it is natural for us to feel

fear, dislike, resentment, anger or
hate. Out of this negative caste of mind, we would

again resort to a violent response, and
hence a conflict arises. Similarly, institutions or

groups would respond to adversity with
establishing policies or laws trying to protect

whatever interest they perceive to be
under threat or attack, which would cause conflicts

since others’ interest and well-being
might be undermined by these measures. In other

words, physical and structural violence
are the product of human mental status such as

fear, anger, and hate, which are
considered in Buddhism to be the internal causes to

violence and conflicts.

Even when no threat of personal safety
or collective interest is in presence,

conflicts may occur, from the Buddhist
perspective, as a result of our two major mental

attachments to, first, subjective
views, opinions and, second, the desire for materials,

relationships. The stronger the
attachment is, the more obsessive one would be, the more

extreme behaviors one would engage, and
the more severe the conflict would become.

The attachment to views refers to
insistence on the correctness of one’s own views, ideas,

and ways of doing things. It would
elapse into prejudice, polarity, negating other views

and ways of life and ultimately
negating people who are different from “us”. The Buddha

sees this attachment to difference as
one major cause of in-group and inter-group

conflicts. Two thousand years later,
this has also been identified by modern scholars as

central to conflicts between ethnic,
social, religious groups and individuals (Blumberg,

1998; Myers, 1999). The second major
cause of conflicts, the attachment to desire, refers

to want for material goods and longing
for affection and belonging in human beings. It

can easily go beyond the level of
necessity and become greed. The greedy desire to have

and to own drives individuals, groups,
and nations into competition for what they want,

followed by conflicts and even wars. As
depicted in Vibhasa-sastra:

For the sake of greedy desire, kings
and kings are in conflict,

So are monks and monks, people and
people, regions and regions, states and

states (The Middle Length Discourses
of the Buddha, Taisho 28: 1547).

This competition is discerned by the
Buddha as a lose-lose situation:

If we win, we incur resentment toward
ourselves.

If we lose, our self-esteem is hurt (Dhammapada,
Taisho 4: 210).

None benefits from this competition
derived from greediness. Even winners accrue

negative feelings from the lost party
that inevitably plants seeds of future conflicts. The

internal cause of violence and
conflicts as analyzed through a Buddhist perspective,

corresponds to many peace educators’
emphasis on intrapersonal peace building and the

United Nations’ campaign for a culture
of peace. The focus on individual and inner transformation of attitudes on and
interpretations of what happens externally, which in

turn would motivate appropriate change
in behaviors, is considered more effective in

eliminating the causes leading to
violence and conflicts on all levels of human

interactions.

The Root Cause of Violence and
Conflicts

Behind the mental, behavioral and
structural causes of violence and conflict,

Buddhism goes even further to the
ultimate fundamental cause leading to all the suffering

inflicted by violence and conflict.
Buddha attributes all our attachments, the resulting

harming behaviors and the suffering
hence caused, to the human ignorance (avijja), that

is, we can not see the world as it is
and see our self as such. We are ignorant to the

cosmic reality that everything in the
world is inter-related, interdependent. Not adopting

the Buddhist worldview, we thought we
are separate from others as an independent

entity: our views are different from
theirs; our properties are certainly not theirs. Hence

we develop our attachments to views and
desires through the reinforcing notions of “me”

and “mine.” We are not impartial in
looking at things. We tend to focus on the harm that

is done to us, instead of examining the
whole event in its context with all the causes and

conditions conducive to its happening.
This ignorance to the principle of dependent

origination alienates us from what
really happens in the situation and the complex set of

conditions around any given event, and
thus rids us of the possibility of making correct

assessment of the event and react
accordingly in time. Without the lucidity to discern the

causes, development and effects of
specific events, we are inevitably causing conflicts

and doing harm to others as well as
ourselves all the time. Even wars between states

come out of great fear and the
collective ignorance (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2003). This

ignorance is what Buddhism identifies
as the very root cause of violence, conflict, and

war, which prevents human beings to
live a peaceful life.

Approaches
to Peace in the Buddha’s Teaching

The Buddha’s teaching, though
encompassing a wide range of complex belief

systems, started with the Buddha’s
first preaching which is conventionally equated with

the essence of his teaching — the Four
Noble Truths (catur-aryasatya). The first two

truths discern the Causes of violence
and conflict and the suffering caused thereby: First,

life inevitably involves
suffering/dissatisfaction (duhkha-satya); and Second,

suffering/dissatisfaction originates in
desires (samudaya-satya). The third and the fourth

prescribe the cure for this unpleasant
way of living, that is, how to promote a peaceful

way of living and ultimately live in
peace: Third, suffering/dissatisfaction will cease if all

desires cease (nirodha-satya);
and Fourth, this state can be realized by engaging in the

Noble
Eightfold Path (marga-satya).

In fact, all the Buddhist practices are
de veloped in accordance with the Four Noble

Truths; that is, they are designed to
enable people to alleviate this suffering and to realize

a peaceful state of existence at all
levels. In this section, the Buddhist approaches to

peace can be categorized in four
dimensions in the holistic/integrated model of peace in

the field of peace studies:
intra-personal, interpersonal, in-group, and inter-group.

Insightful Reflection as the Practice
of Intra-personal Peace

To achieve peace within a person, the
Buddhist approach is to observe and reflect

upon the conditions in the external and
mental operations, and then to decide on the most

appropriate course of action as
response to the outer and inner environments. With the

most adequate response, we would not do
harm to ourselves as well as not harbor

negative feelings and thoughts toward
other. Before taking any external action to realize

peace, the first step for any Buddhist
would be to look at ourselves and the events

happening around us carefully and
honestly, “not sugarcoating anything about the

realities of life, consciousness, or
culture” (Sivaraksa, 1999: 42). The greater urgency

placed by Buddhism upon the inner
reflection finds its doctrinal basis on the Buddhist

analysis of the roots of violence and
conflicts within the mind. As the Buddha teaches,

You should carefully guard your mind,

Maintaining the mindfulness all the
time,

In order to cease conflicts

(The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha, Taisho 1: 26).

This is the starting point for the
Buddha’s disciples to live in peace since peace depends

not so much on what happens to people,
but on what attitude, comprehension, and

response they give to the happenings.
An understanding of the complex set of plural

forces, causes and conditions that have
brought the event into being and have shaped our

immediate perception of, feelings for,
and reaction to the event, only comes possible from

the insight (vipassana) we
develop from inner reflection in the light of the principle of

dependent origination. As the Buddha
testifies,

Once I dwell in peace (= awakened to
the universal),

In adversity I react with no anger;

Living among angry people,

I act with no anger (Dhammapada,
Taisho 4: 210).

With a clearer view of what happened
through practice of inner reflection, we are

empowered with proactiveness; that is,
we no longer would respond compulsively, but

would be capable of choosing a course
of actions more appropriate and beneficial to all

parties
involved, with no anger or hate harbored within ourselves.

This approach does not only work on the
personal level, many contemporary

Buddhist leaders of peace movements
give first priority to inner transformation within

individuals on the path to peace in
larger contexts. The Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh

(1999: 159) encourages people who would
like to engage themselves in peace activism to

prepare themselves in advance by
developing awareness and mindfulness for practicing

peace, that is, reacting “calmly and
intelligently, in the most nonviolent way possible.”

Inner practice on nonviolence is hence
considered a prerequisite to peace workers and

educators. Further relating the impact
of individual practice to the whole picture, the

Venerable Shih Sheng-yen (1999: 175)
stresses the influence of few on many, in that

“peace in society begins with peace
within oneself”, since the widening circle of

influence of each individual would
expand from their immediate sphere gradually to the

larger contexts. Without this “internal
disarmament” (as The Dalai Lama called it; see

Hopkins, 2000: 194), our negative
emotions derived from the ignorance to the true

operating principle behind all
phenomena (including our own feelings and thoughts), the

fear, anger and confusion in the state
of mind, would rise as reactions to the adversary

conditions, and would prevent us from
acting nonviolently and living harmoniously with

other people in the world.

In addition to ridding ourselves of the
negative, non-peaceful feeling and thoughts

within us, through the practice of
reflection upon the dependently originated reality (i.e.

seeing and experiencing the
interconnections and mutual dependence that run through

everything in this world), concerns for
other beings woul d evolve and slowly become as

natural as concerns for self in the
process. Such conceptions would facilitate the

cultivation of four positive emotional
faculties (Pali: appamañña or Brahmavihara):

metta (loving-kindness), karuna (compassion),
mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkha

(equanimity). These pro-social
qualities derived from the understanding of the

interdependent reality would compel a
natural drive for altruistic actions:

The one who dwells in compassion would
not have a conflictual volition;

The one who dwells in loving-kindness
would always act most appropriately

(Dhammapada, Taisho 4:
210).

Though internally generated, these
positive, prosocial qualities contain an outward

orientation. That is, the intrapersonal
practice of insightful reflection is closely connected

with the external practice of
nonviolence and mutually enhances each other since the

inner nonviolence and peace would be
manifested in the five precepts, the fundamental

code
of conduct for all Buddhists to live in harmony with other beings in the world.

according to Schumacher (1975): to
utilize and develop one’s faculties, to overcome

one’s ego-centeredness by working with
others, and to bring forth the goods and services

needed for existence. Only work in line
with the Precepts is the right livelihood, which

hence excludes butchery, production of
and trade in armaments, intoxicants, slaves and

prostitutes, and any economic
activities taking what is not given or given in a dishonest

way. Not only guiding people to assume
economic obligation to the society, this

requirement also echoes the
peacemakers’ protest against the humongous militaryindustrial-

economic compound in today’s global
economy.

Six Principles of Cordiality as the
Practice of In-group Peace

The Buddha’s disciples (monks and,
later, nuns) live a communal life since the

Buddha does not encourage monks and
nuns to live in solitude all the time, hence without

opportunities to cultivate the four
immeasurable deliverances of mind, loving-kindness,

compassion, sympathetic joy, and
equanimity. Within any groups, including Buddhist

ones, exists the possibility of
disputes and conflicts. To prevent harm and suffering

caused by disputes and conflicts among
people, the Buddha teaches the six principles of

cordiality (Pali: cha dhamma
saraniya) that would “create love and respect and conduce

to cohesion, to non-dispute, to
concord, and to unity” (Kosambiya Sutta, 6, The Middle

Length Discourse of the Buddha: 420) in a community. Similar to other
Buddhist codes

of conducts that aim at cultivating
inner states of mind as well as regulating external

behaviors, the principles of cordiality
prescribe that in private and in public, one

maintains 1) bodily acts, 2) verbal
acts and 3) mental acts of loving-kindness toward

other group members, 4) shares material
gains with others, 5) follows the same codes of

conducts, and 6) holds the same view
that woul d lead “one who practices in accordance

with it to the complete destruction of
suffering” (Kosambiya Sutta, 6, The Middle Length

Discourse of the Buddha: 421).

While the first three principles focus
on the direct impact of individual group

member’s acts upon other members, the
last three refer to the indirect structural and

cultural impact. The fourth principle,
equally sharing material goods with each other,

denotes a fair distribution of
resources among members within a community. The

economic and financial justice could
further reduce the attachment to material and

monetary possessions as a root cause of
conflicts. The fifth one, following the same

codes of conducts, refers to the
regulations of an organization, or legal systems in a

nation-state. The Buddha also demands
that the regulations should be “not

misapprehended, justly, unbiasedly
stipulated with the purpose to completely alleviate

suffering” (The Middle Length
Discourse of the Buddha: 420-1).

The last principle, sharing the same
view, deals with the deviance in opinions

among group members. In the Buddhist sangha,
sharing the same view does not mean

ruling out the diversity or
disagreement (for examples, see the Kinti Sutta, The Middle

Length Discourse of the Buddha: 103.4ff; and the Bhaddali Sutta,
The Middle Length Discourse of the Buddha: 65.7ff). In the original sangha
operation, when disputes arise,

social harmony within the community is
built on small group dialogue in which diversity

can be expressed and discussed. At the
same time, through dialectic exchange in the

assemblies, members would find and
confirm their common ground resorting to the

ultimate goal of complete destruction
of suffering. In the scripture (Mahaparinibbana

Sutta, The Long Discourses of the
Buddha: ii.154),
the Buddha places a high value on

these meetings. In the seven criteria
he uses to evaluate the social strength of each

monastic order, holding regular and
frequent assembly meetings is ranked as first, the

primary criterion. And the second
criterion states that sangha members are supposed to

conduct their business in harmony
during the meetings. To ensure fairness and harmony,

the sangha assembly meeting
procedures, recorded in the Vinaya (For example, in Taisho

22: 1428 and Taisho 23: 1438),
depict a democratic nature of these meetings — shared

authority, distributed responsibility,
balanced participation, and decision aspiring to

consensus (Chappell, 2003; De, 1955;
Khongchinda, 1993; Thich Nhat Hanh, 2003).

These procedures are very similar to
those advocated by conflict management and

organizational communication scholars
of our own time. Many peace education activities

engaging people in participatory
decision-making, problem-solving, consensus building

and open discussion bear a remarkable
resemblance to what Buddhist bhikkhus have been

doing in their assemblies since the
days of the Buddha (for examples of modern training

activities, see Macy, 1983; Schilling,
1993; Schroeder, 1995). This is no coincidence at

all, since the genuine benefits of
small group operation as the basis of organizational

harmony have been well documented in
the field of sociology, economics and

anthropology (Chappell, 1999; Galtung,
1990; Loy, 2002; Myers, 1999; Schumacher,

1975; Turpin and Kurtz, 1997).

Recognizing the benefits of small group
operation within a larger context, a peace

activist in Thailand, Sulak Sivaraksa,
forms small groups of social relief supporting

orphaned children, single mothers,
ecological concerns or inter-religious cooperation.

His work is now expanding to include
micro enterprises and more than 400 micro banks,

improving the economic and social
conditions of hundreds of thousands of Thai people

(Sivaraksa, 1992, 1999). This bottom-up
Buddhist approach stresses open

communication and interdependence among
group members and even across group lines

onto the inter-group and organizational
level, which can also be seen in other Buddhist

organizations, such as the Tzu-Chi
Foundation of the Venerable Cheng-Yen in Taiwan

and the Japan-originated Soka Gakkai
International led by Daisaku Ikeda.

Nonviolence Intervention as the
Practice of Inter-group/International Peace

In the inter-group or international
affairs, the Buddhist insistence on dialogue and

nonviolence still rings true. The
Buddha once tells a story of the King of Longevity to

illustrate his stance on war and
retribution while facing violence or foreign invasion. In

the story, the king, when his country
was invaded by another king, gave up the armory defense to protect the lives of
his people. He also asked his son not to seek revenge for

the brutal death of him and his wife.
Later, when the son had three opportunities to kill

the enemy king, he did not do so,
following his father’s last words, and explained

everything to the enemy king. The enemy
king, deeply moved, regretted his past

wrongdoing and returned the land he had
invaded. As the moral of the story, the Buddha

concludes that “if one seeks
retribution for vengeance through vengeance, the chain can

never be broken” (Taisho 1: 26).
This emphasis on absolute nonviolence is exemplified

in the Buddha’s intervention while his
home country of the Sakyans was to be invaded by

a neighboring country. The Buddha in
his old age sat at the border of the two kingdoms

to try to talk the warlike king out of
his plan. His persuasive argument successfully

convinced the king for two times but
the third time he failed. The king marched his army

and killed almost all the Sakyans who,
following the Buddha’s teaching of not taking life,

did not fight back at all. Yet the
story did not end in a negative tone since the principle of

dependent origination was brought in
and the causes and conditions leading to the

horrific suffering of the Sakyan clan
were explained (Taisho 2: 125).

This absolute insistence on
non-violence in the face of violence has incurred

criticism of Buddhism being passive
pacifism which could not prevent human suffering.

Yet a very recent event may add a more
positive angle to the nonviolence principle in

practice. For the first time in ten
years, China resumed dialogue with a delegation from

Dharamsala’s Tibetan
Government-in-Exile in September 2002. The Dalai Lama has

long insisted on peaceful means in
dealing with China on the sovereign of Tibet. His

unwavering commitment to non-violence
has accrued worldwide respect and sympathy

for the Tibetan people. Instead of
expressing anger and determination in seeking

revenge, the Dalai Lam found common
ground with the Chinese by recognizing that the

Chinese are just like him — wanting no
suffering but happiness, and they are also

conditioned by the principle of
dependent origination as the Tibetan people (Chappell,

2003).

His insight into the current situation
and his capacity to empathize with the

perpetrators have enabled him to find
alternative ways of responding to the harms and

damages done to the Tibetan people. The
Dalai Lama advocated a “Middle Way” for

Tibet: not full independence but
self-governed by a democratically elected government,

as well as vision of Tibet as a Zone of
Ahimsa (Herskovits, 2002: 5). The latter refers to

“a sanctuary of peace and nonviolence
where human beings and nature can live in peace

and harmony” (the Dalai Lama, 1989). In
this vision of Tibet, based on the guideline of

ahimsa (non-harming), no manufacture,
testing or storage of armament is permitted. The

entire land is to become designated a
national park where animals, plants and natural

resources in the ecosystems are
protected against exploitation. No technologies

producing hazardous wastes would be
developed (Powers, 2000). And this persevering

effort is finally met with a positive
reaction from the other overwhelmingly powerful

party, as the leading representative of
the delegation visiting China “said he was

impressed
by the flexibility of the Chinese” (Herskovits, 2002).

What the Dalai Lama practices and
achieves not only demonstrates a realistic

alternative to the international
politics but also provides a living proof of the feasibility of

the Buddhist principle of peace in
today’s world that is very different from the one

Buddhism evolved. From the intrapersonal
to the international, Buddhist approaches to

peace at different levels can be well
situated in an integrated model of peace building and

peace keeping in the contemporary world
(the Dalai Lama, 2001, 2002). As the

integrated peace is often criticized to
be too much an umbrella term spanning too wide a

spectrum, the feasibility to achieve
such a vision of peace is doubted. The Buddhist

approaches to peace can substantiate
this model of peace by proving that nonviolence

does work and can strengthen the
beliefs that absence of violence is never productive

without non-violence practiced at all
levels of human activities.

Translating
Buddhism into Peace Research and Activism

To explore new dimensions of
peacemaking and peacekeeping, as peace

researchers do all the time, is to
reflect back upon one fundamental of human culture —

religious traditions and beliefs. This
need is more pressing than ever since we live in a

world of plural religious traditions
that, from time to time, are accredited as causing

conflicts, even wars. Buddhism with its
worldview characterized by dynamic

interdependence and its behavioral
codes stressing non-violence and loving-kindness

offers rich resources for peacemaking
techniques. For example, the extended six

principles of cordiality could be the
ideological buttresses that many peace activists need

in resistance against the structural
violence (Cabezón, 1999; Galtung, 1990).

Furthermore, in examining the
development in the field of peace studies, the Buddhist

worldview is surprisingly in
accordance, and hence worthy of further studies in at least

three areas: the process-oriented
paradigm, peace by peaceful means, and the micromacro

linking in a holistic framework of
peace.

The Process-Oriented Paradigm

The Buddhist principle of dependent
origination mandates a world composed of

dynamic exchanges and interconnections
among all entities existing in the world. The

complex web of causes and conditions in
any given event engenders a focus on process

and causes, over a focus on end
results. In the past, peace used to be reified as an

absolute ultimate: transcendent,
idealistic, and thus unreal, unattainable. People

worshipped peace with awe but knew
deeply in their hearts that peace is unlikely to be

realized in this world. Nowadays, most
peace researchers agree that peace is no more a

stable state to be reached at the end
of the tunnel, but a composite of dynamic interactions

demanding continued striving because of
the constantly changing conditions of all

forces/factors involved. Therefore, in
efforts to build peace, seemingly not directly relevant factors and conditions
conducive to peace could be just important as conflict

resolution or other direct intervention
measures in dealing with conflicts. This new way

of looking at peace building and
peacekeeping is in perfect accordance with the Buddhist

worldview, as substantiated by the
Sanskrit morphology of words referring to peace and

war as collective products.

The positive orientation and the shift
to cultivating causes of peace and preventing

causes of violence bring a new focus to
peace work. By working with everyday,

mundane issues regarding interpersonal
relations, human rights and the environmental

concerns, peace activists are advancing
on both the direct and indirect causes of peace; in

other words, they are creating peace
and furthering the realization of a culture of peace at

every moment. Even if peace makers seem
to do little about the immediate and direct

violence in their surroundings, this
process-oriented perspective empowers those who

strive for peace, especially in those
war-torn regions of the world such as Croatia, Israel

(“Peace: How realistic is it?”, 2003),
and Northern Ireland (Stewart, 2002), where people

might feel helpless, powerless when
only small changes toward peace can be produced in

a conflict and violence-ridden
environment.

While the process view of peace has
been embraced by many peace activists and

educators, its full implications for
peace research is yet to be explored. Johan Galtung is

among the first scholars that have
incorporated the Buddhist perspective into his peace

research, which is most obvi ous in his
works after the 1980’s (Lawler, 1995). To Galtung

(1993, 1990), the Buddhist principle of
dependent origination and the derived worldview

have enriched the peace research in its
fundamental design. Peace research has become

more an ongoing process requiring
corroboration from a wide range of perspectives, a

series of “many small but coordinated
efforts along several dimensions at the same time,

starting in all kinds of corners of
material and spiritual reality,” instead of single-shot

research on time and place-specific
events, because the system would “hit back in a

complex web of interrelations”
(Galtung, 1993: 24). And in order to capture the constant

changing in the multi-causal
conditions, he emphasizes the necessity of making regular

dialogues between all the parties
involved, on the international and non-government

organizational levels, rather than
inter-group negotiation with the imminent threat of war

on the side. As the world is gradually
entering “a new era of cooperative politics and

international conflict resolution”
(Galtung, Jacobsen, & Brand-Jacobsen, 2002: 70), the

Buddhist emphasis on process and the
ever-changing, interdependent nature of the reality

have inspired peace builders and
scholars to discover innovative means to peace and

strengthened the confidence in their
daily work on advancing direct and indirect causes of

peace.

Peace by Peaceful Means

With the shifting emphasis from results
to causes/process, the notion of “peace by

peaceful means,” longtime valued among
peace-makers, is rejuvenated with more persuasion from the perspective of
Buddhism. Substantialized in the light of the principle

of dependent origination, not only does
the old belief “violence begets violence” become

a mandate to prevent the destructive
pattern of accelerated violence, but the impact and

the ramifications of the peaceful means
employed in the process would eventually

contribute to peace. The peaceful
means, in the Buddhist eyes, must include both the

external behaviors and campaigns, and
the inner state of mind of the peace activists.

While the nonviolence resistance has
been widely adopted by people working for peace,

negative feelings and conflicts may
exist within and between the peace-making groups.

Moreover, the strong attachment to
particular views, which is considered one of the two

undesirable habits of mind in Buddhism,
may further enhance an attitude of selfrighteousness

not only in confronting violence and
injustice, but when interacting with

one’s own comrades, which usually
conduces to dissatisfaction, impatience and, hence,

anger and resentment. A constant,
regular reflection upon our own thoughts and feelings

would serve as the first step to purge
those of the negative and unproductive nature out of

us and thus we would be able to pursue
our quest for peace with peaceful means,

internally and externally.

Besides, anger and other negative
emotions at times could be so strong and

overwhelming that one might forget the
interdependent nature of all the phenomena. As a

member of the human race, we all
contribute directly or indirectly, with action or

inaction, to violence, be it war,
conflict, or exploitation. This realization unveils the share

we have in participating in the web of
violence, and hence could weaken the “us” versus

“them”, the “good guys” versus “the bad
guys” dichotomy in minds of many peace

makers and allows them to face the
adversary with a more inclusive, understanding

attitude, thus opening to more creative
non-violent alternatives of promoting peace, a

genuine peace by peaceful means.

The Holistic Framework of Peace and the
Micro/Macro Linking Within

Also derived from the principle of
dependent origination and the interconnected

worldview is a holistic view of peace
and the micro/macro linkage between violence at

all levels, which has perhaps the most
potential among all Buddhist contributions in

influencing peace research and peace
activism. While peace studies has been

characterized as interdisciplinary
since its inception, the boundaries or conceptual frames

of different academic disciplines
inevitabl y compartmentalize the study of peace. And

the study of violence at different
levels has never been balanced in significance to the

public as well as financial funding
received. For example, criminal violence is more

extensively investigated than violence
against women and children, while the latter, in

turn, has accrued more attention than
the consequences of various forms of violence upon

the collective public health (Turpin
& Kurtz, 1997).

In the Buddhist conception of peace,
all causes of violence and peace are

interrelated and mutually influential;
and the interrelations between violence at all levels are assumed and hence
demands a multi-lateral comprehensive approach to stopping

violence and promoting peace at all levels.
One recent common trend in research on

peace and violence is to explore the
links between interpersonal, collective, national, and

global levels of violence. An
increasing number of scholars (Alexander et al., 1987;

Brock-Utne, 1997; Galtung & Ikeda, 1995;
Kurtz & Turpin, 1989; Reardon, 1993) have

attempted to posit a relationship
between the causes of peace and violence at the micro

level and those at the macro level.
Their work has certainly further illuminated the

micro-macro linkage between different
levels of peace and violence.

The relationship between direct,
structural and cultural violence also entered the

research agenda of peace and violence
studies. Witnessing the horrible brutality

pervasive in modern societies during
his forty years of research on war and international

conflicts, Galtung contends that the
domestic policy on violence would be reflected in a

nation’s foreign policy, and “the
family in general and marriage in particular are tests we

must pass in order to contribute to
peace in the larger setting of world society” (Galtung

& Ikeda, 1995: 24). The violence
against women in so-called peace time and during the

war (Boulding, 1992 & 2000;
Tickner, 1992), the economic exploitation in the domestic

society as well as the international
society (Brock-Utne, 1997; Loy, 2002), religious

tolerance for or even endorsement of
use of violence as the most efficacious solution to

the problem (Ellison & Bartkowski,
1997; Gilligan, 1990; Gamson, 1984), all lead

scholars to reexamine the concepts of
peace, equality, national security and social

harmony in a more holistic framework.
Their research findings echo the claim of the

micro-macro linkage of violence at all
levels, and the claim that the inequitable social

arrangements and cultural value systems
produce harm upon the less privileged people

even in the absence of physical and
verbal violent behaviors. The notion of peace

equaling the absence of direct violence
or war is only temporary and fragile since many

people still suffer from the injustice
and violence legitimized in the inappropriate

political, economical, and social
institutions rooted in existing values, or ideologies. That

is exactly what the Dalai Lama (1989)
asserts in his inaugural speech of the Noble Peace

Prize: absence of war is not true peace
while many still suffer from poverty and human

rights abuses. Only multilateral peace
making efforts conceptualizing causes and

consequences of violence as connected
and interrelated along the micro/macro continuum

under the holistic model of peace would
afford the genuine, positive peace in the world.

To further actualization of the
multi-level organic notion of peace in human

society, the Buddhist emphasis on inner
transformation of a person’s state of mind and its

cosmic scope in conceptualizing harmony
finally completes the holistic model of peace.

Reflecting upon negative feelings and
thoughts within oneself as well as applying the

insight to the real life conditions
adds an intra-personal level to peace movement and

peace education. Once recognizing the
diverse and usually contradictory feelings and

thoughts rising and disappearing within
our own minds and their possible manifestations

at the behavioral level, we would be
more likely to be tolerant and patient and therefore

in a better position to deal with the
vast range of diversity out there in the world that might come into conflict
with us, or with one another. On the other hand, the holistic

framework Buddhism employs to explain
the human existence would lead us to seek

harmonious coexistence with others.
Between humans and the nature, the Buddhist view

of natural environment as a result of
our collective doings in the past results in a sense of

imminence which entails a feeling of
obligation in seeking harmony since we all

participate in either destruction or
protection of the nature. The scale of the universe and

the sense of awe implied in the notion
of the Indra’s Net, coincided with the modern

astronomical discoveries, compel us to
rethink the common ground we share as human

beings living on this one planet (among
billions of billions), which makes it easier to

transcend our differences on the way to
create a culture of peace.

Future Strategies

The potentials that these perspective
and practices that Buddhism may enrich the

fields of peace studies and peace
activism of course certainly merit further investigation

in theories as well as in practicum.
Along with the longtime criticism of Buddhism as a

passive and individualistic religion
which encourages people to withdraw from the real

world (for a review of criticisms, see
Queen, 2000), over-emphasis on the role of inner

transformation and the widening circle
of individual influence as approaches to peace in

larger contexts may seem slow and
procrastinating in the eyes of those who consider

immediate effort is needed in working
for social justice and conflict intervention.

Whereas the compassion and
loving-kindness cultivated within individuals can certainly

be necessary for transformation into a
new culture of peace, specific areas of problem,

such as class/race oppression and
environmental degradation need to be adequately

addressed and fully explored.

The introduction of the concept of nirvana
into the West since the early days may

also cause misunderstanding of peace as
the ultimate existence in Buddhism. In some

Buddhist branches, the state of nirvana
equals with ultimate peacefulness (Jayatilleke,

1969), or it is considered as an
ultimate solution for conflicts (Galtung, Jacobsen, &

Brand-Jacobsen, 2002). Since nirvana
is extremely difficult to attain for almost all

Buddhists, the equation (peace = nirvana)
renders peace a remote, unattainable label that

would not be conducive to any present
peacemaking efforts. Along the same line of

thinking, interpreting “right
concentration” (one of the Noble Eightfold Path) as being

peace would be easily misunderstood to
be that one can only stay in peace on the

meditation mat, if without adequate
background in the Buddhist traditions. These two

cases would call for greater efforts in
trying to translating Buddhist concepts into peace

studies.

Besides the problems of modern
interpretations and translations across cultures

and languages, in practice, the
Buddhist monastic orders are often criticized as

ingratiating themselves with
authorities in exchange with advantages (Galtung, 1993;

Sivaraksa, 1999). A group aiming at
liberating self and others could in this world turn out to be part of the
oppressive structure. Together with the fact that violence and conflicts

still exist in countries where Buddhism
is the state or majority religion (Little, 1994), the

relations between Buddhism, political
authorities, and nationalism as well as

discrepancies between the Buddhist
doctrine and its manifestations would need to be

carefully observed and further studied,
if an integrated model of peace is to be realized.

Concluding
Remarks

This article examines the Buddha’s
fundamental teachings that contribute to

peace-building and peacekeeping in the
world. A Buddhist worldview based on the

principle of dependent origination, its
analysis of the causes of conflicts and violence,

and the open communication and
participatory decision-making procedures in social

organizations, would inform and provide
useful paths for theoretical approaches and

research-based applications in peace
studies. In particular, the Buddhist observation and

reflection techniques developed for
more than 2,500 years may start an “inner revo lution”

(Thurman, 1998) among warring people as
well as peace activists: enabling them to see

more clearly the multilateral forces
operating in the situation, and reexamining the

appropriateness of own causes and
behaviors. The true value of nonviolence, compassion

and altruism advocated by Buddhism
would also inspire all people on the path of peace.

Given the will, the insight, the
perseverance, and the proactive creativity to realize the

infinite possibilities latent in the
dependently originated reality, peace, from the Buddhist

perspective, is realistic and
achievable; and, aiming at making a more just and humane

world, peacemaking is an imminent,
common responsibility mandated by the

interdependent nature of our existence
and therefore to be shared by every one of us.

References

Alexander, Jeffrey C., Berhard Giesen,
Richard Munch, and Neil J. Smelser, eds. 1987.

The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Blumberg, Herbert H. 1998. “Peace
Psychology after the Cold War: A Selective Review.”

Genetic, Social and General Psychology
Monograph, Vol.124,
No.1, pp. 5-37.

Boulding, Elise. 1992. The Underside
of History: A View of Women through Time.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boulding, Elise. 2000. Cultures of
Peace: The Hidden Side of History. Syracuse, NY:

Syracuse University Press.

Brock-Utne, Birgit. 1997. “Linking the
Micro and Macro in Peace and Development

Studies. In Jennifer Turpin and Lester
R. Kurtz, eds., The Web of Violence: From

Interpersonal to Global (pp. 149-160). Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.

Buddhist
Scriptures.
1959. Translated by Edward Conze. London: Penguin.

Cabezón, José Ignacio. 1999. “The
UNESCO Declaration: A Tibetan Buddhist

Perspective.” In David W. Chappell,
ed., Buddhist Peacework: Creating Cultures

of Peace (pp. 183-188). Boston, MA: Wisdom
Publications.

Chappell, David W., ed. 1999. Buddhist
Peacework: Creating Cultures of Peace. Boston,

MA: Wisdom Publications.

Chappell, David W. 2003. “Buddhist
Social Principles.” In Kathleen H. Dockett, G. Rita

Dudley-Grant, and C. Peter Bankart,
eds., Psychology and Buddhism: From

Individual to Global Community (pp. 259-276). New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama. 2002. “The
Global Community and the Need for Universal

Responsibility,” International
Journal of Peace Studies, vol. 7, no. 1,

Spring/Summer.

Accessed 8 November 2005.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama. 2001. “The
Human Approach to World Peace”, Peace and

Conflict Studies, vol. 8, no. 2, November. <=”"
span=”">

DL82PCS.htm> Accessed 8 November
2005.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama. 1989.
“Nobel lecture by His Holiness Tenzing Gyatso, the

fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet.” News
Tibet, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 4-6.

De, Gokuldas. 1955. Democracy in
Early Buddhist Sangha. Calcutta: University Press.

Ellison, Christopher G., and John P.
Bartkowski. 1997. “Religion and Legitimization of

Violence: Conservative Protestantism
and Corporal Punishment.” In Jennifer

Turpin and Lester R. Kurtz, eds., The
Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to

Global (pp. 45-68). Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.

Galtung, Johan. 1993. Buddhism: A
Quest for Unity and Peace. Honolulu: Dae Won Sa

Buddhist Temple.

Galtung, Johan. 1990. “The Path toward
Peace Lies in Dialogue and Action.” Seikyo

Times, No. 348, 43-46.

Galtung, Johan, and Daisaku Ikeda,
1995. Choose Peace: A Dialogue between Johan

Galtung and Daisaku Ikeda. London: Pluto Press.

Galtung, Johan, Carl G. Jacobsen, and
Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. 2002. Searching for

Peace: The Road to Transcend (2nd ed.). London: Pluto Press.

Gamson, William. 1984. “Political
Symbolism and Nuclear Arms Policy.” Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, 21-23

August, San Antonio, Texas.

Gilligan, John J. 1990. “Teaching Peace
in a Christian Context.” In Leroy S. Rouner, ed.,

Celebrating Peace (pp. 15-32). Notre Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press.

Hirakawa, Akira, ed. 1997. Bukkyo
kanbon daijiten (Buddhist Chinese-Sanskrit

Dictionary). Tokyo: The Reiyukai.

Hopkins, Jeffrey. 2000. The Art of
Peace: Nobel Peace Laureates Discuss Human Rights,

Conflict
and Reconciliation. Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion.

Herskovits, Annette. 2002. “What Future
for Tibet?” Turning Wheel (A Publication of the

Buddhist Peace Fellowship), Winter
2002-2003, p. 5.

Jayatilleke, Kulatissa Nanda. 1969. Buddhism
and Peace. Kandy, Ceylon: Buddhist

Publication Society.

Khongchinda, Phramaha Chanya. 1993. The
Buddha’s Socio-Political Ideas. New Delhi:

Navrang.

Kraft, Kenneth. 1995. “Practicing
Peace: Social Engagement in Western Buddhism.”

Journal of Buddhist Ethics, No. 2, pp. 152-177.

Kurtz, Lester R., and Jennifer E.
Turpin. 1989. “The Social Psychology of Warfare.” In

Lester R. Kurtz, ed., The Nuclear
Cage: A Sociology of the Arms Race (pp. 77-89).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lawler, Peter. 1995. A Question of
Values: Johan Galtung’s Peace Research. Boulder and

London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Little, David. 1994. Sri Lanka: The Invention
of Enemy. Washington D.C.: United States

Institute of Peace Press.

The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A
Translation of the Digha Nikaya. 1995.

Translated from the Pali by Maurice
Walshe. Boston, Massachusetts: Wisdom

Publications.

Loy, David R. 2002. A Buddhist
History of the West: Studies in Lack. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Macy, Joanna.1983. Despair and
Personal Power in the Nuclear Age. Philadelphia, PA:

New Society Press.

The Middle Length Discourses of the
Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, 2nd

edition. 2001. Translated by Bhikkhu
Ñanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. Boston,

Massachusetts: Wisdom Publications.

Myers, David G. 1999. Social
Psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

“Peace: How realistic is it? Views from
Abroad.” 2003. Tricycle, Vol. 12, No. 4, Summer,

pp. 73-77.

Powers, John. 2000. “The Free Tibet
Movement: A Selective Narrative.” In Christopher

S. Queen, ed., Engaged Buddhism in
the West (pp. 218-244). Boston, MA:

Wisdom Publications.

Ogiwara Unrai [A.k.a., Wogihara Unrai],
ed. 1979. Bon-Wa dai jiten [originally subtitled:

The Sanskrit-Chinese Dictionary of
Buddhist Technical Terms based on the

Mahavyutpatti]. Revised ed. Tokyo:
Suzuki Gakuj utsu Zaidan.

Queen, Christopher S., ed. 2000. Engaged
Buddhism in the West. Boston, MA: Wisdom

Publications.

Rahula, Walpola. 1974. What the
Buddha Taught (2nd ed.). New York: Grove.

Reardon, Betty A. 1993. Women and
Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Schilling, Dianne. 1993. Getting
Along: Activities for Teaching Cooperation,

Responsibilities,
Respect. Spring
Valley, CA: Inner choice Publishing.

Schroeder, Judy. 1995. Peace Talks:
Classroom Activities to Enhance Communication

and Conflict Resolution Skills. Louisville, KY: Peace Education
Program, Inc.

Schumacher, E. F. 1975. The Small is
Beautiful. New York: Harper and Row.

Shih Yi n-shun. 1980. “Fofa yu renlei
heping (Dharma and Human Peace)” In Fojiao yu

zhengzhi (Buddhism and Politics). Taipei:
Dasheng wenhua.

Shih Sheng-yen. 1999. “A Pure Land on
Earth.” In David W. Chappell, ed., Buddhist

Peacework: Creating Cultures of Peace. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Sivaraksa, Sulak. 1999. “Buddhism and a
Culture of Peace.” In David W. Chappell, ed.,

Buddhist Peacework: Creating Cultures
of Peace (pp.
39-46). Boston, MA:

Wisdom Publications.

Sivaraksa, Sulak. 1992. Seeds of
Peace: A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society.

Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.

Stewart, Jon. 2002. “On the Far Side of
Revenge: An Interview with Paul Haller on

Northern Ireland.” Turning Wheel (A
publication of the Buddhist Peace

Fellowship), Winter 2002-2003,
pp. 16-19.

Sumanatissa, Medagoda. 1991. “Buddhism
and Global Economic Justice.” In Glenn D.

Paige and Sarah Gilliatt, eds., Buddhism
and Nonviolent Global Problem-Solving

(pp. 125-135). Honolulu, Hawai’i:
Center for Global Nonviolence Planning

Project, Spark M. Matsunaga Institute
for Peace, University of Hawai’i.

Taisho shinshu Daizokyo (The Tripitaka, new compilation of the
Taisho era).

Thich Nhat Hanh. 2003. Creating True
Peace: Ending Violence in Yourself, Your Family,

Your Community, and the World. New York: Free Press.

Thich Nhat Hanh. 1999. “Ahimsa: The
Path of Harmlessness.” In David W. Chappell, ed.

Buddhist Peacework: Creating Cultures
of Peace.
Boston, MA: Wisdom

Publications.

Thurman, Robert A. F. 1998. Inner
Revolution. New York: Riverhead.

Tickner, Ann J. 1992. Gender in
International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on

Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press.

Turpin, Jennifer, and Lester R. Kurtz,
eds. 1997. The Web of Violence: From

Interpersonal
to Global. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120520/jsp/nation/story_15510995.jsp

No third front for me: Maya

RADHIKA
RAMASESHAN

New Delhi, May 19: Mayawati today said she would reveal her choice for
President after the UPA and the NDA named their candidates, and indicated she
would steer clear of “third front” politics.

The Bahujan Samaj Party
(BSP) president hinted that her presidential candidate would be someone
committed to the SC/ST cause. “Whoever the candidate is, I will first assess
his credentials on the Bahujan movement,” she said.

The former Uttar
Pradesh chief minister’s comments came at her first news conference in Delhi.

“I am waiting to see
who the UPA and the NDA field. Only after that shall I reveal my plans,” she
told a questioner.

Asked to comment on
Pranab Mukherjee, who is being mentioned as a possible consensus candidate, she
said: “It is inappropriate to jump the gun and respond to mere speculation.”

On P.A. Sangma,
sponsored by the AIADMK and the Biju Janata Dal, she said: “I learnt of it from
the newspapers but the scenario is unclear.”

Mayawati made it clear
that her priority was to fight the Samajwadi Party government in Uttar Pradesh,
and not to get entangled in “third front” politics at the Centre.

A political aide said
Mayawati would focus on the BSP’s “high growth” states in the heartland and
Maharashtra and try to maximise her gains in the next Lok Sabha polls on her
own.

“No third front for
me,” Mayawati said today. Her previous experiment with such a front — when the
Left tried to bring her onto the national centre-stage in 2009 — had ended with
the bitter taste of defeat.

The BSP chief arrived
at the venue. A security retinue and confidant Satish Mishra were in tow. She
occupied the lone seat placed on the dais and read out a long opening
statement.

She answered the
queries patiently.

Asked how her successor
Akhilesh Yadav compared with his father Mulayam Singh, Mayawati said: “You may
draw your inferences from the reports filtering out of the state every day.
Father and son share the same mindset and adhere to the same party line on
policies and issues, so there is no change in their style of thinking and
functioning.”

She accused the
Samajwadi government of allowing law and order to spin out of control and
alleged that in the two months of its existence, nearly 800 murders, 270 rapes,
245 armed robberies and 256 kidnappings had been reported.

“These are crimes that
have come to light because FIRs were filed. Because of political pressure, many
crimes go unrecorded. You can imagine what a disastrous condition the state
will be in by the time this government completes its term,” Mayawati said.

“Businessmen and
traders feel insecure. Nobody wants to step out of their homes after sunset. If
a family’s male member does so, the women cannot sleep peacefully till he
returns.”

Most people, especially
women, had lauded Mayawati for restoring the rule of law in Uttar Pradesh.

Mayawati accused
Akhilesh of targeting the SC/STs. “Police stations are out of bounds for
SC/STs. Samajwadi musclemen are grabbing land that was allotted to SC/STs. At
least 2,000 SC/ST officials were shunted out to the boondocks,” she said.