Download Buddhist View of the Origin and Evolution of the Society 1

Buddhist View of the Origin and Evolution of the Society
(Transcribed from Prof. Oliver’s Lecture)
1. Introduction
This topic is discussed in one of the discourses of the Dīghanikāya, that is in the Aggañña
Sutta. Since it is the only text mentioned of the topic in Pāli canon, the authority should be given.
There are some different opinions among the scholars on this discourse. One says that this particular
sutta was not the discourse of the Buddha because the content of it is quite different from the other
contents which taught by the Buddha. It can be assigned to debt of the Vedic tradition, by means of it,
is a kind of mythology. We can say that this particular sutta was composed by the later monk regarding
the fact concern with mythology. Another misunderstanding of the Aggañña Sutta is that it is
consider as an exposition of the origin and evolution of the society. As you know, the Buddha said the
origin of human being or society cannot be seen: this is the basic Buddhist position regarding on the
issue. Then this sutta violates this basic Buddhist position. But if you read the discourse carefully, you
can see that the origin of the society is not discussed in the Aggañña Sutta. What is said in the sutta is
that the evolution of the society is done within period of two times called Vivaṭṭa kappa (opening up)
and Samvaṭṭa kappa (closing down). The Buddha said in the sutta, “the society opens up in the
particular time and it closes down after millions of periods of that particular time.” The lots of evolution
and dissolution take place between these two times. Thus there is no talk of the origin of the society
in the Aggañña Sutta.
1
Another allocation of the sutta is that it is considered as a story of creation. As you know,
Buddhism does not accept the theory of creation (issaranimmānavāda). In the Aggañña Sutta,
there is no reference to the Creator. There is nothing to be created. The entire world does not
disappear while some planets of it can appear and disappear. The world exists as it is. The evolution
and dissolution of the world take place again and again between the period of the two fixed times. The
last argument against the sutta is that it is not scientific and not logical comparing to the theory of
evolution which was discovered in the Western world in the 18th century. The principle of the
scientific evolution theory, however, is basically accepted in the Aggañña Sutta.
2. The Summary of the Story
In the samvaṭṭa kappa the earth disappeared. But the other planet would not disappear. Before
the earth reappear there was sattā (beings) go to the world of radiance (ābhassakāya) and stay
there for millions of period, then the world of earth started coming up again. Starting vibration from
the world of radiance, the entire earth was covered by water, so that the beings had to stay on the
sky. When the earth emerged from the water, the beings landed on the earth. They had to eat mud
because there was nothing on the earth. After that two plants came up: mushrooms and creepers. The
beings started eating them. (Life came from the space: fit to the modern science).
1
th
It may be in the 27 chapter of the Dīghanikāya
1
The three terms used to qualify this beings (sattā): antalikkhacara (floating in the sky),
pītibhakkhā (feeding with happiness), and sayampabhā (they are luminous). After they came down
to the earth and started eating things, these qualities were disappeared.
At this particular time, the sola system came into existence. When they started eating earth,
craving entered into these beings. Earlier all were fare, but as the result of eating complex fare and
dark appeared.
Millions of creatures came down form the world of radiance, so there were not enough foods
for them. Suddenly the self-grown paddy appeared. The habit of eating rice changed the beings to
the human beings. The inhabitance sattā had no gender discrimination, but as the result of eating
rice, the females and males appeared on earth. They started engaging in sexual intercourse in public.
There were some who criticized it. Then the partners build the house in order to hide their sexual
intercourse. The people divided into each family and the householders started to store up the rice,
instead of gathering it each evening and morning. Then the rights of property arose, and the first anti
social activity, stealing, committed. Some householders kept their rice safely and took the rice of
others. With this new experience, the people realized that they should establish the institution of
state in order to get rid of anti social actions.
The authenticity of this story: there are two other versions: Mahayana version called mahavastu
(Sanskrit text) and Tibetan version called Dulva. In China there is a translation of this story of
Dīghanikāya version as well as another independent translated version. Therefore this story is well
known to the wide Buddhist worlds.
3. The Characteristic of the Story
This story consists of all the basic factors of the theory of the evolution of the society. The first
characteristic is that it reflects the society of patriarchy. It only talks of men. There is no mention of
women except the part of sexual distinction appeared on the earth. The women became the victims of
men. The second, there is no mention of children. The story is the story of adults. The third, it reminds
us of the time that the people started building up houses, called agāra (huts). The primordial men and
women might live in the huts. There were two more units of inhabitant called gāma (village) and
nigama (town: indicates some sort of urbanization. Nigama might be the place where the products
were exchanged, the marketing place). The fourth, the society in the sutta was agricultural society.
There were the time of self-grown paddy appeared. After it disappeared, then people started cultivated
paddy. In any agricultural society, there is also a cattle feeding field. Although this sutta did not
mention it, the term gomayaṃ is once mentioned in the story. It shows that the cattle feeding field also
was known to the people in that society of the story.
The fifth, it was not a society without any kind of administration. It was not anarchy. There
was various safe guard of protecting properties and members of the society. There was the sense of
2
punishment. Person who stole the paddy were banished and sexual intercourse publicly were also
punished. The sense of morality arose, and the decisions were taken in assembly. People gathered
and discussed the issues. Sometimes the punishment made by majority decision. This sense of
punishment indicates that the society had started stepping forward because society cannot exist
without punishment. The punishment is necessary. The most developed society on the earth is the
society of monks according to Buddhism, and the Buddha prescribed lots of punishment for the monks
in Sangha. Punishment indicates the development of the society.
The sixth, the most important decision they took was to introduce the private property. The
primitive society kept communal property. Then this introduction of the private property significantly
changed the entire social systems, values and institutions. It was the beginning of the selfishness. The
communal sense disappeared. The arising new institution called “state.” This decision of establishing
state which was taken millions of years ago has still its validity even now. We cannot think of society
that has no state. Those primordial people were intelligent enough to make such an important decision
that it has influenced entire history of human being. The seventh, the rampancy of stealing caused
them to establish the state. There are scholars who believe that stealing will not disappear as long as
the poor exist. But according to Aggañña Sutta, the first person who stole was a rich, not a poor
man. Even if we get rid of the poverty in our society, the stealing will exist. It is a natural instinct of
human mind. There were even kings who stole the property of the poor.
4. The Kingship in the Buddhist Texts
The climax of the story was the establishment of the kingship, the state. The decision was
done after long discussion in assembly about the problem of rampant stealing. In order to look after
their properties they should put one who can protect them, and the chosen one was called king. That is
why the king was called “Mahāsammata” (selected by many or all): mahājanasamtoti mahāsammato
(When the people give their consents to him, he becomes king). They looked for the most qualified
person; it means that they appointed the king among themselves. According to other religions, the
king is divine creation. Man has nothing to do with appointment of the king. He was created by God.
But Buddhism says kingship came out of the majority decision of the people. People, therefore, can
change the king when he is not qualified. There are some criteria of selection of the king in Buddhism:
abhirūpo (handsome), dassamīyo (good to be seen), pāsadiko (blessed), and mahesakkho
(competence). While another sources of the story (Sk and Dulva version) emphasized the physical
quality of the kingship, here in the Pāli source the last quality regarded the most important:
mahā(great)-īsa(divin)-akkha(to be said). Thus the king must be a person who is to be said great
among the divine beings. Therefore the most capable person can be the king.
There is something else regarding this quality of the competent ruler which is given by the
Buddha in one of the discourses of the Anguttara-nikaya.2 There are many qualities of kinship, but
here I would like to mention only two of them: The first, yāni tāni sippaṭṭānāni tattha dakkho hoti
2
th
It is in the 5 chapter of Anguttara-nikaya, called “pañcanipāta.”
3
analaso (There are various thoughts, sciences, and languages that the ruler should know) The ruler
should be the person who masters various knowledge; the second, vyatto pandito medhānī patibalo
hoti atitānāgapaccupanne at the cintetuṃ (The ruler should be penetrating knowledge, knowledgeable,
intelligent, be able to see what happened and what is happening, and what will be happen). When
the Buddha took the term Mahāsammata he considered all of these qualities.
There are various theories of the origin of the state in the Western world; among them the
most popular one is the contract theory of the origin of the state introduced by Jean Jacques
Rousseau. According to it, the kingship arose as the contract agreed upon between the people and the
selected ruler. The interesting thing is that the story in Aggañña Sutta states clearly that the kingship
came into being in that particular assembly upon its contract agreed between the people and the
selected person. If the king violated the conditions they had agreed, people had the right change him
into a new selected one. It was a simple contract motivated by the anti social activities: if the selected
one agreed conditions people would give the authority to punish, and he will receive the part of
productions from the people. This is how to kinship came into exist. The mahavastu and Tibetan dulva
say that the obligation to which the selected person agree has two dimensions: punish the wrong doer
and reward the good. It means people decided to pay him the tax. This is how to taxation came into
exist.
There are two more terms considering the ruler in Buddhist texts: rājā and khattiya. The rājā
means that the king is the person who delights the people cautiously (dhammena pare ranjetiti rājā) by
the promise to get rid of the chaotic situation. The khattiya means the person who is the lord of the
fields (khettānaṃ patīti kho khattiyo) by protecting the fields from outside invasion.
5. Conclusion
This beautiful story gives a new light on our understanding of the evolution of society. It
describes how the basic, essential and social institution came out. Therefore, it cannot be simply
rejected as a myth; the history is narrated in this story of Aggañña Sutta in a different form as ancient
style. (This is the story mentioned in the context of the Buddha’s historical argument against the
Brahmanic theory of varnadharma and svadharma.
4