tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post6007807637298226162..comments2024-03-28T14:11:24.265-07:00Comments on dhamma musings: Uneasy is the HeadShravasti Dhammikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-57239977034668947222008-05-30T18:20:00.000-07:002008-05-30T18:20:00.000-07:00The idea of ‘rights’ in the sense that we use the ...The idea of ‘rights’ in the sense that we use the word today is a very recent (18th cent) and a very particular European concept, so you are quite ‘right’ in raising the question of whether the Buddha (or whoever composed the Jatakas) said people have a ‘right’ to overthrow unjust governments. He did not. I was couching the Jataka’s idea in modern terms. The Jatakas imply that it is understandable, okay, not impious, to do so, it is only to be expected that it will happen. Nonetheless, even this was not a common notion in the pre-modern world. It didn’t matter who was ruling or who was revolting, divine justification was used. Charles I used it to justify his autocracy and Cromwell used it to justify cutting Charles’ head off. The Jatakas present the issue in purely practical and non-religious terms – if it is not to your advantage, if it is to your detriment, get rid of it.Shravasti Dhammikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-69192625700750335102008-05-30T15:42:00.000-07:002008-05-30T15:42:00.000-07:00I'm curious about the following:"Several stories i...I'm curious about the following:<BR/><BR/><I>"Several stories in the Jataka implicitly suggest that people had a right to overthrow a king who was cruel, unjust or incompetent (Ja.I,326; III,513-14; VI,156)."</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately I don't have access to the texts referenced. (Actually I might, I have 2 of the PTS jataka volumes waiting for me at the library.)<BR/><BR/>Do the stories necessarily imply a "right" or do this or do they simply suggest that revolts are what end up happening in this case regardless of any theories of right to govern? It seems like the Tipitaka (and therefore probably the Buddha) didn't really speak in terms of "rights" the way we usually do today, but more in terms of describing reality and the cause-and-effect therein. It seems like the reality is that kings ultimately can't be kings if everyone just stops listening to them. No god will come to strike people down for not listening to them. (Also check out what I <A HREF="http://politicalbuddhism.blogspot.com/2008/05/article-on-buddhism-and-governance.html" REL="nofollow">wrote here</A>.)Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12589645693380512031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-60973328532520146382008-05-29T21:41:00.000-07:002008-05-29T21:41:00.000-07:00The three last Buddhist kings are Bhumibol (bhumi=...The three last Buddhist kings are Bhumibol (bhumi= earth, pala = protector) of Thailand, Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan and Naradom Sihamoni of Cambodia.Shravasti Dhammikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-89215602876117408572008-05-29T15:03:00.000-07:002008-05-29T15:03:00.000-07:00Excellent article! Great work!Another king is the ...Excellent article! Great work!<BR/><BR/>Another king is the king of Bhutan. I'm not sure if that's the third one, or the one with one foot on a bananna peel, but I think Bhutan has had some issues recently.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12589645693380512031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-32374681467488097252008-05-29T04:53:00.000-07:002008-05-29T04:53:00.000-07:00could it be King Bhumipol of Thailand and Emperor ...could it be King Bhumipol of Thailand and Emperor Akihito of Japan?<BR/>The third one I am not sure....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17719577086802511484noreply@blogger.com