《佛法與善治》新書連載之二十四：「仁德」在佛教政治思想理論與當代高等佛法理論的關聯性

5.4「仁德」在佛教政治思想理論與當代高等佛法理論的關聯性

1.佛陀對於國體的態度

當研究佛教社會政治的方法同時考慮到佛陀構想的理想國度是怎樣的時候，我們要問的是：佛陀更推崇的是共和制政府還是君主制政府呢？這確實是個棘手的選項。

佛陀時代的政府有兩種形式：君主制，另一種可以稱為部落共和制(gana)(ga?a：部落共和國，相當於是寡頭共和國,由一群貴族階層統治的許多小共和國)。在部落共和制或寡頭共和制政體中，共和政府表以中央議會為表現形式，現如今的辭彙描述為：僧伽 (僧團),即由中央議會管轄的一個行政委員會。按此推測，中央議會主席或總統Samghamukya主持行政會議，規範調節不同政見。總體來說議會參與程度是由國家層面以及議會成員的實踐習慣決定的。

一些學者認為佛教僧伽決議模式是模仿了中央議會模式，例如：二十名議會的法定僧侶與政治議會的法定團體是類似的。進一步講，僧伽（社團）可以理解為是民主社會。僧伽代表成員是通過充分考慮後被納入的，他們可以與其他組織成員自由辯論。佛教同時反對私有制財產制度，推崇共有財產的概念。這些都超越了純粹的民主與社會主義形式。

佛教的《巴利三藏經》指出;離車國 (Lich-chvais)、吠提訶(Videhas)、摩羅國 (Mallas)以及釋迦族在佛陀在世以及涅槃後都遵循共和形式。摩羅是一個小國，其中央議會中只有四名代表成員。儘管離車國族人數較多，中央議會成員也只有九名。吠提訶國的共和聯盟，政府代表是離車族的兩倍即十八人。吠提訶最初是君主制管理，但隨後摒棄了這種形式，與梨車族（Vaisali）融合一道形成聯盟制。釋迦族曾是君主制，但每一個建國的統治階層成員自稱為國王（拉者）Raja。【1】但他們也建立並使用議會大廳的形式。佛陀圓寂的Ku?inagarī地區民眾建立並延續了在中央議會大廳商討公共事宜的形式。

君主制的摩揭陀族 (Magadha)與拘薩羅族(Kosala)經常針對吠提訶 (Videhas)與摩羅 (Mallas)，於是摩拉發起統一的聯盟議會。摩揭陀在公元500年征服了摩拉族與吠提訶族，但離車族是個旗鼓相當的對手，在公元300年又從摩揭陀族中獨立出來。

在所有這些部落共和國或寡頭共和國中，當然沒有任何政黨，也沒有所謂的選舉制。一個理想的國度是不存在政黨的，但是卻可以進行和諧有效的國家管理。例如根據佛陀教導的離車族是這樣描述的：佛陀以僧伽的形式形成自己的團體，是模仿共和形式的小部落以及寡頭小國的，由此我們可以得出結論，佛陀是推崇共和政府體制的。但值得注意的是，佛陀關於共和政府的想法與弗栗恃國有很大關聯。

佛陀曾稱頌弗栗恃國的聯邦形式。弗栗恃國的國事開展是由人民代表在公共大廳商討進行的。歷史記載表明了儘管弗栗恃國是類民主的國家，但它並不能被打上「民主」的標籤，因為民主這個形式是在佛陀涅槃後由希臘人創立的。佛陀第四次傳道期間，薩拉卡（Vassakara），阿闍世王的大臣，曾向佛陀提出有關醫療以及社會福利的諮詢，並在議會提出發起一個針對弗栗恃國的戰役。弗栗恃國不僅是一個團結的部落同時也是佛陀的追隨者。佛陀教導他們團結、警醒並行正義，這個部落遵從佛陀的這些教誨逐漸富強起來。在《大般涅槃經》（第一章，4-5）中，佛陀對薩拉卡強調，「只要弗栗恃國公共議會持續頻繁舉辦，會晤積極，行動團結、遵從法度、尊敬老人並公平善待女性，這個部落就不會衰落反而會逐漸強盛。」摩揭陀族的國王企圖摧毀這個共和部落國的時候，佛陀告之弗栗恃國族民：這個部落不會被摩揭陀族打敗。但是共和制最終被擊敗了，因為弗栗恃國的阿闍世王按照佛陀的建議從聯盟中獨立出來。這正應了那句千古名言：「合則立，分則散。」

但共和的政權形式並未傳播到印度。君主制在當時非常盛行且國王擁有至高權力，對於很多提議是非常專橫及壓制的。佛教非常不喜歡這點。早期佛教試圖避免與所有國王產生矛盾。因為跟國王們爭執是毫無必要的。「國王就像是毒蛇，是不應當觸動他們的怒火的，最好不要和這些國王有任何接觸。」 如佛陀所教導的，佛教的態度是非政治化的，甚至是反對政治的。佛陀不僅不鼓勵追隨者參與政治生活，他隨後禁止所有政治言論。他的這種對政治的隔離很像耶穌區分對待上帝的事務與凱撒大帝的事務。

但是無視現有的專制政權，就無法建立理想的佛教國度。所以佛教徒逐漸傾向去教導國王管理政治事務的方式。佛陀似乎也接受了君主制，或許在衰敗的歷史時期，惡是不可避免的，因此，他也準備好去探討如何將這些國家變得成功。他也許預見到民主在殘暴的年代無法獲取成功，共和政府如弗栗恃國族無法抵抗更為強大的中央集權力量和金錢的腐蝕。所以，雖然佛教抱持反對專制的傾向，但獨裁統治者的力量是不可逆的力量，並在一定程度上可以維護秩序與公正。在這種情況下，佛陀謹慎的向這些暴君講述仁德，因為這不僅有益於人民而且也會增加君王自己的功德。並建議他們廣納良言，聽取議會集會的聲音。

對於很少參與君主議題討論的佛陀來說，還是給raja國王規定了五項資質，首先是：高貴的出身，真正的國王不應當從凡俗中產生。第二是財富，這樣就會避免腐敗。國王須是明智的，善於將財富用於社會發展。第三是擁有強大的軍隊護衛國家安全；第四要有一名智慧的大臣；第五：國王須擁有良好的聲譽，這種良好的聲譽可以與其他友善的國王一起建立合作聯盟互相支持，這種未踏足他國卻盛名在外的名譽可以幫助他贏得廣泛尊重並創建一個強有力的聯盟。

【1】拉者（梵語：Raja，????），或譯作拉惹。南亞、東南亞以及印度等地對於國王或土邦君主、酋長的稱呼，最早源自於梵文的???rājan一詞。

5:4 The Ethical Component in the Buddhist Political Thought andthe Contemporary Relevance of the Higher Buddhist Ideals

1. The Buddha』s approach to Statehood

While discussing the socio-political approach of Buddhism and while looking at what the Buddha conceived as an ideal state, it may beasked whether the Buddha favoured republican or monarchical government. This is indeed a vexing question.The government current in Buddha』s period was of two types: monarchy and what may be called atribal republic (ga?a: tribal republic, in fact oligarchic republic = small republics governed by a body of nobles).In the tribal or oligarchic republics, republican governance was performed by a Central Assembly, then and now referred to as Sa?gha, and an Executive Council controlled by the Central Assembly.President or Chairman of the Central Assembly, the Sa?ghamukya, presided over the Central Executive and regulated each debate. Overall attendance was determined by state dimensions and by practice of members.Some scholars believe that the decisions of the Buddhist Sa?ghawere modeled on the premise of the Central Assemblies, e.g., a quorum of twenty monks may have come from a similar quorum in the political assembly. In addition, Sa?gha (community state) itself can be analysed as a democratic society.Members were admitted with due consideration and were allowed to debate with others or among themselves freely. Buddhism was also against private ownership of property and accepted the notion of public property, which has overtones of both pure democracy and socialism.

The Buddhist Canon mentions the Licchavis, the Videhas, the Mallas and the ?ākyas among the republics during and soon after the lifetime of the Buddha. The Mallas were a small state and had only four members in their Executive Assembly.Although the Licchavis were more numerous, their Executive Assembly had only nine members. Inconfederation with the Videhas, the number of executives doubled (total: 18members). The Videhas were originally monarchical but they later abolished the monarchical system and joined the Vai?ālī to form a confederacy. The ?ākyas were monarchical but in the sense that each founding member of the ruling class called himself a rājā. But they also built and used an Assembly Hall. And the people of Ku?inagarī, where the Buddha died, made it a custom to assemble in the Council Hall in order to discuss public affairs.

The monarchies of Magadha and Ko?ala frequently targeted the Videha and the Licchavis and therefore a confederation was started with the Mallas. Magadha had conquered the Mallas and Videhas by 500 B.C. but the Licchavis proved worthier adversaries and reestablished independence from Magadha in 300 B.C.

In all these tribal republics or oligarchic republics, there were of course no political parties; there were no elections as we know them. An ideal state had no political parties, but was governed harmoniously. Suchwas the Licchavis』 state as reportedly taught by the Buddha.

Since the Buddha formed his own community, the Sa?gha, inimitation of these small tribal or oligarchic republics, we may conclude that he was in favor of republican government. But we must keep in mind that the Buddha』s recommendations for republican government were issued in connection with the Vajjis.The Buddha extolled the confederacy of the Vajjis. It is stated that thebusiness of the Vajjian republic was carried out in a common hall by representatives of the people.Historical evidence is thus given of a semi-democratic concept of state, albeit the Vajjis were not labeled as 「democratic」 because democracy was invented by the Greeks many years after the Buddha』s enlightenment.

According to the Buddha』s fourth sermon, Vassakāra, thechaplain to Ajāta?atru, had been sent to inquire as to the health and welfare of the Buddha and to seek council regarding a tentative campaign against the Vajjins.The Vajjins were both a united tribe and disciples of the Buddha. He taught them unity, sensibility and righteousness, as a result of which they would prosper. In the Mahāparinibbāna-suttanta (I, 4-5), the Buddhais reported to have stated to Vassakāra, 「So long as the Vajjian clans heldpublic assemblies frequently, met and acted united, followed and respected the dharma, obeyed their elders and established practices and obtained women fairly, so long may they be expected not to decline but to prosper」, and when the king of Magadha sought to destroy the republican state, the Buddha declared that the Vajjians should not be allowed to be overcome by the king of Magadha. However, the republic was ultimately defeated because Ajāta?atru acted according to the Buddha』s advice and created dissent among them. Thus, even thousand years before the quotation, it was proven that 「united we stand, divided we fall」.

However, the Republican form of government did not come to prevail in India. Monarchy was predominant at that time and kings were very powerful, some being extremely despotic and oppressive toward their subjects. Buddhists disliked the mintensely. Early Buddhists sought to avoid all conflicts with kings. They saw no necessity for arguing with them, feeling that kings were like venomous serpents — one should not make them angry.It is better not to come into contact with them at all. Such was the instruction of the Buddha. The Buddhist attitude was rather apolitical, or perhaps anti-political. The Buddha not only discouraged members of the Order from participating in political life, he went further and banned all discussion of politics. He made a distinction similar to that of Jesus between the things of God and the things of C?sar.

But in disregarding the existing despotism it was virtually impossible to establish the ideal Buddhist society. So gradually Buddhists tended more and more to teach ways in which kings should manage their political affairs.

The Buddha seems to have accepted monarchy also, perhaps as a necessary evil in a degenerate period of history, in that he was ready to discuss how to make it a success. He perhaps thought that democracy could not function effectively in an age of violence, that republican governments like the Vajjis were not likely to with stand the force of more strongly centralized powers, or the corrupting influence of money, so that, although Buddhism contained anti-authoritarian sentiment, the irresistible strength of an autocrat would be needed to maintain order and some degree of justice; in this case he would be concerned to give his advice that the auto crat should be benevolent, which would redound to his own good as well as the people』s, and should be so far democratic as to heed the recommendations of the assemblies of his subjects.For the Buddha, who seldom debated the role of the monarch,the rāja must have five qualities, beginning with a noble birth. A true king could not be born among commoners. Second is wealth, citing that it could stave off corruption. Provided that the king is sensible enough, wealth couldbe used for social development. The third is a strong army for national security. The next quality is a wise minister. The last quality of a king is good reputation so that he can enter into an alliance with anotherfriendly king (mitra), for a good reputation precedes a person and may go abroad before the body of the person; in so doing, it creates respect and astrong alliance.

文中圖片來自緣士林禪院

翻譯 境守拙

翻譯校對 天雪

文字編輯 校對 境亦彤 境守拙

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！