Requirement of Middle Path and Mindfulness

in Politics

by Laksiri Fernando-Aug 18, 2017

( August 18, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Some or many of the Buddhist
principles can be applied to resolve most of our problems, if employed in a non-
sectarian fashion. For example, the methodology of four noble truths can be
taken as a scientific approach in resolving social or political problems. In this
sense, the concept of Dukkha is about the identification of problems/issues in an
objective, in depth and a logical manner. It is said that a proper understanding of
a problem is a major part of its solution.

We often name problems as corruption, poverty, crime, torture,

underdevelopment, racism, terrorism, separatism etc. That does not mean that
we understand them properly. Understanding a problem with its vicissitudes and
demarcations is necessary for problem solving. It is not about others corruption
that we should be concerned about, but corruption as a whole. A holistic
approach is necessary.

The next step obviously is to investigate, identify and analyse the reasons and
causes for those problems in the same rigour. That is the most profound task.
Those are what the Buddha identified as Samudaya. More pertinently, Hethu-
Pala or cause-and-effect was the logical theory that he put forward in this
respect. What do we mean by Nirodha in the modern-day context or scientific
investigation?

It is not only the conviction that when there is Dukkha, there is Nirodha. It is also
about the possibility of having different paths toward resolving a problem. This is
closer to what most social scientists seek to investigate through scenario analysis
or SWOT analysis. Magga therefore is the finally selected path, with conviction,
realism and analysis. It is like our road map for solutions. The middle way or the
middle path was what the Buddha put forward in this context, in general terms,
as the best path or Magga. It is one of the most intricate.

Middle Path

Do we in Sri Lanka, as a pioneer and a prominent Buddhist country, follow the

middle path? We were at least overtly doing so in the past. But not any longer.
This middle way was prominent in the economic and foreign policy areas during
the fifties. But when it came to the language policy or ethnic relations, it terribly
failed. The reason was the ethnicity taking over the treasured religious or
philosophical principles.

Let us ruminate on the foreign policy area. In the early period after independence,
there was an obvious alignment with the West. That was a result of the colonial
heritage or mentality. That was one reason why the Soviet Union blocked our
membership in the UN until 1955. Even during this period there were instances
where efforts were made to strike a balance. The rubber-rice pact with China was
one such effort prompted by some economic imperatives. However, during the
Kotelawala period, the foreign policy again became one sided. His lopsided policy
was reflected at the Bandung conference.
Most prominent advocate of a middle path in foreign policy was SWRD
Bandaranaike. He also was the promoter of a mixed economy to mean again a
middle path. A mixed economy might be the best even today, taking best out of
both the private sector and public enterprises. However, Bandaranaike terribly
failed on the language policy and ethnic relations, paving the way for the first
major communal riot in 1958. Although Mrs. Bandaranaike apparently followed a
middle path in foreign relations, the same cannot be said about economic matters
or ethnic relations. Her closed economic policy tilted towards an extreme, even
on the foreign front. It was not detachment, but isolationism like in Burma after
1962.

Dudley Senanayake was undoubtedly a successful promoter of a middle path.

Even on ethnic relations, he could maintain a measure of compassion like U Nu in
Burma (1947-1962). His personality also was in the direction of a middle path.

The same cannot be said about JR Jayewardene, the successor to Senanayake in

the UNP. On all three fronts of economic policy, foreign affairs and ethnic
relations, his policies were lopsided and to the extreme. Even on constitutional
matters it was the case, until he was forced to accept devolution and language
rights of the Tamil speaking people in 1978.

Some Other Roots

The wisdom of moderation also can be traced to other philosophies. For example,
Robert Ellis has written A Brief Western Philosophy of the Middle
Way highlighting the works of David Hume and Emmanuel Kant. This is a recent
work (2011). However, Ellis inspiration initially came from Buddhism, rejecting
(black and white) dualism in logic and theory of knowledge.

Even one can trace some Western roots of the middle way to Aristotle who said,
virtues in contrast to vices are judicious means between contrary extremes.
However, most of his logical analyses were dualistic. In recent time, Charles
Hartshorne is another one who has come up with the Wisdom as Moderation: A
Philosophy of the Middle Way (1987). It is important to note how he has begun
his exposition.

Starvation is not good, overeating is not good. Caution can go too far; so can
boldness. Some persons are kind to friends but neglect their civic duties or
obligations to strangers; some support good causes but are unkind to their
personal associates.

Although Hartshornes work is philosophical, it equally appeals to common sense

and personal life, as revealed in the above quotation.

Among our own academics, David Kalupahana is one who has been the most
prominent in explaining both the philosophical and practical aspects of the middle
way (Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna, 1986). As he has pointed out,
noble eightfold path (NEP) perhaps constitutes the main thrust of the middle
path. This has extremely practical relevance in good governance, if implemented
or practiced faithfully.

NEP and Good Governance

There are many expositions on the noble eightfold path by Annie Besant, Bhikkhu
Bodhi, Walpola Rahula, Henepola Gunaratana, Nayanatiloka etc. As a list, it is
simply the following, taken from Ven. Walpola Rahula (What the Buddha Taught,
p. 41).
1. Right Understanding
2. Right Thought
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
In her Freedom from Fear (p. 67), Aung San Suu Kyi implied that while these
principles are primarily for personal liberation from suffering, they also have a
practical value in politics. This is more pertinent in the case of good governance.

Most importantly, there is a close relationship between these principles and what
we understand as universal freedoms and human rights. Freedom of conscience,
freedom of thought (including religion), freedom of speech, freedom of action
and the right to life (or live) closely go with the first six noble principles,
emphasising the other side of the coin, the responsibilities or duties.

It is an underlying principle in human rights discourse that when there are rights,
on the part of the people, there are corresponding duties on the part of the rulers
and those who govern a country. It is the connection between the rights holder
and the duty bearer. This does not mean that the citizens are absolved from
duties and responsibilities, but more emphasis is placed on the rulers within a
system of democracy. Because they are elected on a social contract. This is also
the Buddhist theory on Maha Sammatha.

Then what is the relevance of the last two principles in the list: the right
mindfulness and right concentration in politics?

Right Mindfulness

All over the world today, there is much recognition about the Buddhist concept of
mindfulness. More correct understanding should be on the right mindfulness
and not mere mindfulness. The lack of concentration is the primary reason for
defused mindedness or wrong mindedness. Both are interconnected.

A polity or politics, normally is like a human mind, confused without a focus. Sri
Lankas Parliament, like many others, perhaps might be the most symptomatic of
this confused status. The right concentration through meditation helps a person
to achieve right mindfulness and other qualities such as right understanding, right
thought, right speech and right action. Could that be the case in respect of the
polity as well? Could politics be meditative in any significant sense? Could
mindfulness meditation be practiced in achieving better results in our
administration? (However, meditation should not be implemented like what the
IGP allegedly did to a minor employee in the police department!).

A first step in meditation might be to understand the different, contradictory,

conflictual and confused thoughts that comes to a persons mind. The reasons
behind them. Some of these thoughts could be illusionary or delusionary. This is
also the case in politics. However, a polity is not one mind, but thousands and
thousands of minds, while many millions are dormant. A polity cannot sort them
out or understand them like in a persons mind.

What might be possible is for some observers to monitor the events, like
observing the thoughts during meditation, sort them out, separate what is real
and illusionary, and try to make sense out of what is happening, and publicise
them for others and possibly political actors to adjust their behaviour in the right
direction. One may argue that this is what is done by the media. This is partly the
case as reportage or reflection. But mostly the media is part of the confused
thought processes that adds to the confusion.

If we take a good daily newspaper, it is like a snapshot of the political/social mind

of the nation. In the case of a website or a web-newspaper, it is more dynamic
even new thoughts are being uploaded through news, articles or comments in
some cases. The question however is whether these processes add to the
confusion or help sort them out?

One advantage under modern technology is to almost instantly expose the

wrongdoers or bluffers in politics. For example, if Parliamentary debates are fully
broadcasted to the people, then the people could make a judgement about who
is correct, who is wrong, who is bluffing, who is contributing etc., not to speak of
lying. For that to happen, there should be a better understanding about the noble
eightfold path or any such moral codes from other religions or secular
philosophies.

Conclusion

In liberal philosophy, there is the notion that freedom of expression, dialogue or

even arguments could help finding the truth, and contribute to human progress.
Also, is the notion that the exposure of false notions or consciousness help human
progress. Naming and shaming are two devices in this process. This is often called
the free market of expression. This is partly correct but not totally. The form is
emphasized, but not the content very much.

The free market of expression has not managed by itself to stop wars, nuclear
arms race, environmental denigration, man-made disasters and more importantly
the prevalence of despicable poverty, malnutrition and underdevelopment in the
world. Because there is no right mindfulness in these discussions or dialogues,
not to speak of violent fights and confrontations. Instead of arousing and
aggravating confrontations on disputed issues, the Buddhist way could be
considered as a path of resolving them through brining realism to the political
mind. This is the importance of the middle path, the noble eightfold path and the
right mindfulness, if practiced properly. Otherwise, a similar criticism is valid for
Buddhism. It is preached, not practiced.
Posted by Thavam