Paticca Samuppada as a Universally Applicable Theory (Part 2)-TROJAN HORSE OF RIGHTS, SOVEREIGNITY, GLOBALIZATION
Posted on May 16th, 2010
By Shelton A. Gunaratne, Ph.D., professor emeritus Minnesota State University Moorhead
ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In this essay, I shall go deeper into establishing that Buddhist philosophy is irrevocably irreconcilable with the adoption of sovereignty as the guiding principle to shoo-away external interference or to nick-in-the-bud potential internal rebellion or terrorism. Moreover, why ought we to fall in love with the high-sounding puff associated with sovereignty within the context of the outdated Treaty of Westphalia?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Do we not have the gumption to anchor our political institutions and concepts to significant events in our own past?
Buddhist Interpretation of Society
The Buddhist philosophical view of globalization vastly differs from all the Western definitions of globalization. This is because of the different meanings attached to society by Buddhist philosophy and the dominant Western philosophy.
From the Buddhist perspective, society is a population of humans and its entire environment, including my dog Cosmo and the rabbits that sneak into my backyard without my explicit permission. In contrast, the Western definitions of society are pathetically anthropocentric inasmuch as they fail to encompass the environment thereby implying the sovereignty of humans over everything else.
This difference arises from the emphasis placed by Western philosophy and culture on human individualismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚sovereign and free, born with an array of natural/inalienable/ moral rights with no concomitant duties or social responsibilities. Eastern philosophies, in general, place the emphasis on society rather than the individual. (This Eastern stance is implicit in the 1962 quote attributed to John F. Kennedy: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚) Even Daoism, which disapproved all social fetters imposed upon individuals in the feudal society, was looking for some kind of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-primitive agrarian collectivism,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ not reverting to a state of nature where the (Hindu concept of) mathsya nyaya (law of the fish) prevailed.
My hunch is that the WestƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s advocacy of rights (with no reciprocal responsibilities), including R2P, is a Trojan horse to perpetuate global dominance of Western ideology and supremacy backed by putative international law, which is nothing but reincarnated Western law.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
The universal principle of dependent co-arising, borrowed from Buddhist philosophy and backed by quantum physics and complexity science, could be Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s guiding light in implementing dasa-raja-dharma and in conducting external affairs. It is a universal principle that should not affect the religious or ethnic sensibilities of any community.
The application of the paticca samuppada mechanism forces the rulers to comprehend that people elect their leaders to alleviate theirƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ (peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s) everyday problems (dukkha); that a cluster of interconnected, interdependent and interacting factors, and never a single cause (e.g., assertion that Sinhala discrimination caused Tamil terrorism) are behind each of those problems; that no solution is permanent (e.g., belief that granting Eelam will end the Tamil dukkha) because each problem-solution is a temporary point in an ongoing process (bhavacakra); that everything is subject to change (anicca); and that factors related to promoting individualism (atta/ego/soul)ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚rights, sovereign power of the ruler (e.g., exemption of the ruler from the rule of law), etc.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚will increase dukkha while factors that are related to the anatta (no-self) dimension of existenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚negotiation as equals, charity (dana) without strings, righteousnessƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ toward adversaries, etc.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬‚will lessen dukkha.
ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Buddhist View of Globalization
The Buddhist explanation of globalization is embedded in the doctrine of paticca samuppada (interdependence or dependent co-arising; also translated as dependent co-origination, conditioned genesis, or conditioned co-production). Samyutta Nikaya explains it as a four-part formula (JayatillekeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s category 2): ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-This being, that becomes; from the arising of this, that arises; this not being, that becomes not; from the ceasing of this, that ceases.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Accordingly, nothing can exist independently or autonomously.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
Trinh Xuan Thuan explains that according to this concept, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The world is a vast flow of events that are linked together and participate in one another. There can be no First Cause, and no creation ex nihilo of the universe, as in the Big Bang theory. Since the universe has neither beginning nor end, the only universe compatible with Buddhism is a cyclic oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Thuan 2001, 206).
Buddhism sees no need for invoking an anthropic principle or any notion of design.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Reality appears through the dynamic interaction of interdependent matter and flows of consciousness, which have co-existed for all times. As Joanna Macy explains:
In this [dependent co-arising] doctrine, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ [all] factors, mental and physical, subsist in a web of mutual causal interaction, with no element or essence held to be immutable or autonomous ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ [Our] suffering is caused by the interplay of these factors and particularly by the delusion, craving, and aversion that arise from our misapprehension of them. We fabricate our bondage by hypostatizing and clinging to what is by nature contingent and transient. (Macy 1991, 18)
Macy asserts that one cannot apprehend the meaning of dependent co-arising aside from the doctrine of impermanence (anicca), the first of the three characteristics of existence, the other two being suffering (dukkha) and no-self (anatta).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ All that a sentient being perceives and feels and thinks is anicca.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Thus, dependent co-arising is the pattern of change itself.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This view of order within change parallels the view of contemporary complexity science.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In the sixth century B.C.E., it was a radical view in contrast to the unilinear causality views of both the Vedic (Hindu) and the non-Vedic schools.
Analytical theorizing of the nature of causal relationships reached a high degree of sophistication and complexity in the later Abhidharma Pitaka, a scholastic elaboration of the philosophic aspects of Buddhism.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Abhidharma makes a distinction between the mental and physical realms, and between conventional (or relative) reality, which we are familiar with in our daily lives, and ultimate (or absolute) reality, which has the quality of vacuity.
Thuan explains, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Conventional reality concerns the transformation and change of things in the phenomenal world.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ These changes are governed by causal laws that are similar to the physical laws discovered by science in Nature.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In that sense, the Buddhist view of conventional reality is very much like that of a scientist, with the difference being that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Buddhism [also] introduces the laws of karmaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Thuan 2001, 208)
Conventional reality, however, is mere appearance (maya).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ On the deeper level, phenomena do not have an objective existence.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The act of observation and analysis changes the information that nature sends to the observer.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Human beings cannot observe nature in an objective manner.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ There is constant interaction between our inner world and the outer world. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The inner world, when projected onto the outer world, prevents the scientist from seeing the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”bareƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ objective facts.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ We only see what we want to seeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Thuan 2001, 208).
Quantum mechanics, as clarified by Heisenberg and Bohr, makes it clear that the very act of observing can modify reality because of the interdependence between observer and reality.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, BellƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s theorem, and the Aspect experiment provide conclusive proof of the interdependence of particles in the subatomic world.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The difference between conventional reality and ultimate reality can be compared to that between a photon (what the observer can see) and the wave function that correlates it with its antiphoton, which may be separated by billions of light years (what the observer cannot see).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
Thus, modern physics confirms that everything depends on everything else, and that reality is not local.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Moreover, the concept of interdependence implies ongoing change (impermanence) of all elements constituting conventional reality. The Buddhist view is that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-consciousness has co-existed, co-exits and will co-exist with matter for all times. The same goes for the animate with the inanimateƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Thuan 2001, 213).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ From the Buddhist perspective, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-one can thus interpret the Big Bang as the manifestation of the phenomenal world from an infinite potentiality already in existence. ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ Once it has come into existence, the universe goes through a series of cycles, each composed of four cycles: birth, evolution, death and a state where the universe is pure potentiality but has not manifested yet itself.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This cyclic universe has no beginning nor an endƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Thuan 2001, 210-211).
The foregoing analysis makes it clear that globalization, from the Buddhist perspective, means the ongoing process of change encompassing all elements in Nature, both physical and mental, which are mutually interdependent.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Globalization, therefore, cannot relate only to humankind aside from the context of everything else in Nature.
The primacy of the individual is an artifact of Western philosophy and political science. Eastern philosophy places rights as a reciprocal of responsibilities.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ An individual and a society have both rights and responsibilities to exercise. No right can exist without reciprocal responsibility.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
In Part 3, I shall present a few proposals revolving on paticca samuppada that might elevate Sri Lanka into a new trajectory far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
(To be concluded)
May 16th, 2010 at 3:27 am
Truly interesting scholarly articles by Shelton. I recently tried to get an idea about the so-called Treaty of Westphalia. But I ended up disappointed with the feeling that the content was more close to an agreement between thieves on how to divide their loot than anything of intellectual value. I can understand why westerners tend to use anything or any value that comes their way to their own gain thus rendering it worthless at the end.
The issue of sovereignty is high on the agenda of local politicians (MR regime) to counter the interference by English community acting as the self-appointed international community to get involved in local affairs with hidden agendas. At a time sovereignty is used as the catch phrase to deflect this hegemonic mega-diplomacy, especially that emanating from your adopted country, any dilution of their defence under the idea of reciprocal or interdependent rights and responsibilities might have led to the non-publication of your original article in a local news paper, that instigated this series of articles. I am getting the impression that MR regime is becoming more selective in their conduct and hope would not end up becoming despotic when they fail to realise their political goals, a more than certain outcome from what they have contemplated so far. I must note here that, when it comes to other affairs, sovereignty is treated more like an invalid coin, for example when inviting aliens to exploit local assets and skills in the name of investment on the false premise that they would develop the country. Neither it has any value when using all English made systems or when paying servility to aliens and adopting their languages and their ways of life.
Having said the more specific reason for not publishing your original article that I did not add to my previous comment in response to the original news item, I am not sure how a Buddhist concept could offer the cure-for-all kind of answer. This concept has been in existence for at least two an half millennia and none was able to apply it in a gainful way to this date. According to some sources, this concept could have been in existence long before attributing it to Buddhist philosophy. If we shed the restrictions imposed by words themselves and ignore all the quotes, the notion of sovereignty boils down to our way of life in the natural world. If we ignore all our gains and losses of modern life, we become just animals like all other forms of life. In that world, every being including humans have the natural set of instincts that may define the full sovereignty. It is my feeling that the variance we find in the modern sovereignty is the compromises made to achieve the modernity in its many forms. Unfortunately, failure to grasp the reality and lack of clarity in modernity have contributed to differences in opinion on how we manage our lives. So I agree with you to the notion that we need to have a concept more accurately representative of our needs than the concept of sovereignty. However, as an individual with no attachment to any concept, be it religious or political, I wonder whether this specific Buddhist doctrine is the answer.
If we set the human life as animals as the reference standard (or the centre point), many versions of knowledge (religions, political ideologies, languages, cultures, ethnicities, tribes, castes, gangs, families etc.) can be positioned around this point to reflect the movement of human groups that would be attracted to such knowledge. As this religious concept lies at one extreme end of this multi-dimensional knowledge space around the referenced centre point, how it could be attractive to other human groups is highly debatable. That could be also a reason for not getting the appeal from anyone yet though it existed for so long.
The notion of paticcasamuppāda (“dependent origination”, “conditioned genesis”, “dependent co-arising” or “interdependent arising”) is itself highly debatable when applied to certain events. All the references made to other concepts in your scholarly articles reflect the extension of knowledge on events to build concepts with some even close to speculative boundaries, a kind of approach that carry the risk of engaging in denial of existence of events that contravene such concepts. Reliance on events than on concepts could lead to more acceptable knowledge that may serve more useful purposes than living in perennial dukka mode. Though the terms such as “suffering” and “uncertainty” are overemphasised or under-emphasised depending on the belief that we use to build our thinking, I find that they are just integral parts of life that made who we are than a matter of debate with undue emphasis.
We have reached to a point that nothing that worked before has of any use and there are seemingly no way out to our problems, a state of saturation, similar to life in the wild experienced by all other forms of life, or like stuck in a fixed mode. Thus your effort to build a concept is highly commendable and look forward to read yours. Having developed our own version of a future model build on natural events than invented ideals, I believe that our model offers a more natural solution to our problems and direction that we have totally lost. It offers the tools that we need to solve the very problems we created by moving away from living as natural humans. Your concept will offer a chance to compare our model, which will be published in Sinhala after the grandeur concepts perpetuated by the arrogant politicos take their natural course. I wish to note that a few points borrowed from our model are used by the current set of politicians that made a significant impact in the society. I wish there are other like you who could try to find a concept that would do better.