Continue  Next   Page

         There is a great difference between positive and negative ethics.     Under a positive ethical systern based on harmony and happiness, human ways of thinking will be changed.   When we think
of acquiring, all our interest is focused on the objects of our aspiration and other people are seen as
obstacles or means as competitors or prey.    But when we think of giving our interest is focused on 
other poeple and we see them with understanding and compassion.    Concepts central to the human
condition such as equality and happiness  are seen in a new light.    In the competitive system which
is based on acquiring, people see equality in terms of self-protection and they demand equal rights
and oppotrtunity to pursue personal interests.    In a righteous democratic system, equality gives us
the maximum opportunity to cooperate in realizing social unity and well-being.    Just as contentious
happiness turns into harmonious happiness, so contentious equality changes to harminious equality.
         On a higher level, human beings can be trained to generate an inner happiness independent of external material pleasures.   The tacit assumption of improperly  educated people that they can only
be happy when they have material wealth causes them to direct their efforts outward.   This pursuit
inevitably entails some stress and suffering.   By directing our efforts more inward through practices
such as skillful reflection and meditation, it is possible to find a subtler and more independent kind of happiness, born from calmness and understanding, which allows us to rise above exploitative actions.
      Ultimately, human development leads to the full realization of truth and complete understanding
of the interdependence of all things: our lives, society and physical environment.   When the flow of
our understanding is in harmony with the flow of reality, there is freedom.     The characteristics of
impermanence, conflict and conditionality -all common signs of this world -will no longer lead to stress, tension and suffering.    The true nature of all things is realized and, by recognizing the inter-
relatedness of the individual, society and the ecosystern, we harmonize their interests.
  While we are struggling for happiness, we fail to care and take time for others.  Suddenly happiness
becomes someting lacking in our immediate present, someting that is always waiting to be found in
the future.        In the family, in school, at the work place - ttroughout society -a feeling of hunger prevails.     Unhappy people spead unhappiness everywhere.    The unhappiness of the human mind
can be seen all too clearly in the general state of our societies.
              Peace, quite literally, begins at home.   We need to bring love and happiness back into the family, and bring care and mutual happiness back into the schoolroom, by teaching the harmibious happiness that all can share.     Happy people will spread their happiness and so help to allay conten-
tion and conflict.
       We should ask ourselves less what we could be getting and instead ask more what we could be
doing for others.    In the same way, we should become aware of what nature has given to us rather
than relentlessly asking for more and more of its resources.      We need to learn to appreciate how
nature and those around us contribute to our well-being.    By eveloping these appreciative ways of
thinking, we will see care and mutual  happiness giving rise to peace in our minds and in society.
Such care and happiness coincide with a deeper understanding of the kinship of all beings before the
law of nature.   Thus, peace is ultimately realized throug compassionatr wisdom.
         In any human relationship, we can make compromises with one another, and even go beyond compromises to harmony through love and friendship.      But truth cannot  be compromised.   We can relate to truth only through knowledge and wisdom.    Therefore, in dealing with truth, discssion
and freedom of thought should be encouraged.        A culture should be developed in which loving-
kindness and cooperation are the standards for human relationship, while freedom and an uncompro
nmising search for knowledge are the standards for our relationship with truth.
The human relationship with nature has in recent times largely
been defined by a science which, under the influence of Western religion and philosophy, views
man as separate from nature.       The aim of such a science has long been to conquer and dominate 
nature and to manipulate it to our profit-oriented ends.    such an essentially hostile attitude, trands-
lated into actual exploitative practices through technology, has led to the serious environment conse
quences we are facing today.     Science must now take a turn for the better and lead civilization in a
new direction.    Knowledge must be sought not for its exploitative balue but for its ability to show us how  to benefit from nature without damaging it.        Technology must be given a more clearly defined role, in which the harmonious and sustainable coexistence of people, society and the environment are the goal.
         All such changes must begin in the mind.   They can only be achieved by the mind that enjoys 
inner peace, freedom and happiness.   If we are to establish peace on this planet, we must develop
inner peace by freeing ourselves from craving, lust for power and all contentious views.  This entails
the development of the individual -which brings us back to the task ofeducation.
    In initiating the Prize for Peace Education, the UNESCO has taken a step forward in the cause of
peace.      It is a commendable effort.    I understand that the prize is not merely  in recognition of what certain individuals or organizations have done to bring forth peace.       Let us be honest -such peace has not yet been achieved in our world.   I see it rather as an incentive and encoragement for 
a concerted effort to achieve genuine peace.   It is a call for further action toward winning the real prize: a truly peaceful world for mankind.        The prize here awarded will really be won only when
that goal has been realized.
Orriginal   Volume  Editors  Section  In troduction
        Phra  Rajavaramuni,s essay represents an interpretation of Theravada  Buddhist ethics a noted 
Thai monk-scholare.      Although Rajavaramuni (recently elevated in monastic rank to Thepwethi) 
has held administrative positions within the monastic order, he is regarded in Thailand primarily as a
scholar of text and doctine.     His highly esteemed dictionary of Buddhist terms and interpretation of Buddhist thought (Buddhadhamma) place him in a rank with Vajarananavarorosa, the greatest of
the Thai monastic reformers in the modern period.
     We begin with Rajavarmuni for several reasons.   His exposition of the tradition serves as a point
of reference for serveral of the other chapters.   Rajavaramuni,s perspective in this volume is unique
in that he writes from within the tradition, from the standpoint of his own view as a Buddhist monk
thoroughly grounded in the texts of  Theravada Buddhism.     The easay, therefore, provides both a
unique normative view and a very useful collection of canonical references for those interested in 
exploring the to topic of Buddhist ethics within the  Theravada texts themselves.       Finally, the auther sets the two foci of the volume -wealth and poverty, and individual perfection and the social
good - within the broad context  of  Buddhist ethics as a whole.      Rajaravamuni, then, beings this
study by addressing a general problem in the fiels of religious ethics: the relationship between the
soteriological ( indicidual perfection) and moral (social good) dimensions of a religious tradition, but
he does so as a Buddhist monk interpreting a particular problem within the social -ethical dimensions of the tradition.
        Rejecting the stereotypical view of Buddhism as a world-denying monasticism,  Rajavaramuni
argues that the tradition bas consistently affirmed a balanced, middle - way view of interdependence
between individual oerfection and the social good, monk and laity.      He stresses the inportance of
the categories of reciprocity and friendship within the Buddhist community as a whole and contends
that the classical admonition of "taking oneself for a refuge" necessarily means :becoming dependa-
ble" within society.    In the context of the monastic life the monk does not simply work toward his
own savation ( nibbana), but function as teacher and moral exemplar within the broader comunity.
Accordingly,  Rajavaramuni argues that the roles of monk and
laity are distinct but interrelated.        Both live and act in terms of a single, unified "systerm of Buddhist ethics," with  Rajavaramuni describes in terms of principles of ideals (dhamma) and rules
(vinaya).   Both draw on aspects of the moral life (pre-magga) coupled with specific categories or
stages in a developmental path (magga).        Rajavaramuni,s discussion of pre-magga and magga
aspects of the moral life reflects his concern for the polarity of individual perfection and the social
good.     Thus, in general terms Rajavaramuni analyzes the moral life around social interaction ("asso
ciation with good people") on the one hand and the development of mental awareness ("systematic
attention snd reflection") on the other.      Likewise, the path of moral and spiritual development in-
cludes training rules (sikkha), which build character and stipulate appropiate reactions, but which also promote mental awareness and insight.      The distinction between lay and monastic ethic is as
much a matter of context as it is of specific content.    Thus, lay ethics emphasizes generosity (dana)
the laity have material goods to give -whereas the monk has a responsibility to gain the wisdom (adhipanna) associated with mental training (adhicitta) in order to fulfill his responsibilities as teacher and moral exemplar.
      Consistent with this view of Buddhist ethic,  Rajavaramuni argues that Buddhism takes a middle
way stance toward wealth.   That one accumulates wealth is less of a moral problem than how one
acquires and uses it.         Furthermore,  given the principle of mutual reciprocity at the heart of Buddhism,s  Middle Way, the person of wealth has the natural responsibility to be generous or to redistribute it.    On the practical level generosity means lay support of the monastery; spiritually it
expresses an attitude of non-grasping or unselfishness which leads to compassionate, generous, other
regarding attitudes and actions.
           The systerm of Buddhist ethic, in short, integrates the highest good of the individual with the 
welfare of society, connects the mental development and exemplary character of the individual devotee with virtuous and harmonious social existence.    Put in Buddhist terms, Rajavaramuni inte-
grates the Four Sublime States of Mind (loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity)
and the Four Bases of Social Harmony (charity, beneficial speech, acts of service, and impartiality).

                     Although the ethics of Buddhism is widely discussed today, its treatment is frequently misconceiveed or lopsided, even when offered by Buddhist scholars.          In order to gain a more  accurate picture of Buddhist ethics, it would be helpful to avoid certain mistakes from the start.
               First, Buddhism has been characterized by some people as an ascetic religion.    In reality, asceticism was experimented with by the Buddha and later rejected by him before he attained 
enlightenment.        As far as Buddhism is concerned, the term is ambiguous and should not be used 
without qualification.    Also, since the western term monasticism has been applied to the way of life
and practice of the Buddhist bhikkhus, or monks, they have been misunderstood by many as living
apart from society in isolation from the world.      In principle, at least, a Buddhist monk cannot live
even a single day without contact with lay people.
      The way of life and practice of Buddhist monks, furthermore, have been mistaken by some inter
preters as the whole content or the standard of Buddhist ethics, whereas in fact monks are only one
part of the Buddhist community and their ethics are one component of Buddhist ethical reflection.
Buddhism is the religion or way of life not only of the monks, but of the laity as well.
        A different sort of problem results from the history of Buddhist studies in the West.    It seems that most of the books on the doctrinal aspect of Buddhism written by western scholars deal mainly,
if not exclusively, with metaphysical and spiritual teachings, with the mind and meditation.   Very few treat the dailty-life ethics of the common people.      It might be that Buddhist metphysical and
spiritual teaching are what make Buddhism unique or different from other religions and phylosophi-
cal systerms, or it might simply be that these writers are especially interested in such subjects.  What
ever the case, this slant has lured many into thinking that Buddhism is merely an ethics of the mind
and that it kacks concern for social and material welfare.    Although Buddhism does emphasize the
cultivation of certain mental states, it teaches that human consists of both mind and body, and it states flatly that a necessary degree of material and socail well-being is a prerequisite for any spiri-
tual progress.