Buddhism and the Government

Here I want to talk about the relations of Church andof Tibet, they had no Pope and no hierarchy. They
State. These are simplest in Buddhism, which teachesproduced no à'Beckets or Hildebrands and no
that the truth is one, that all men ought to follow it andInquisition. They did not quarrel with science but
that all good kings should honour and encourage it. Thismonopolized it.
is also the Christian position but Buddhism has almostThe views prevalent in China and Japan as to the
always been tolerant and has hardly everrelations of Church and State are almost the antipodes
countenanced the doctrine that error should beof those described. In those countries it is the hardly
suppressed by force. Buddhism does not claim todissembled theory of the official world that religion is a
cover the whole field of religion as understood indepartment of government and that there should be
Europe: if people like to propitiate spirits in the hope ofregulations for gods and worship, just as there are for
obtaining wealth and crops, it permits them to do so.ministers and etiquette. If we say that religion is
In Japan and Tibet Buddhism has played a moreidentified with the government in Tibet and forms an
secular role than in other countries, analogous to theimperium super imperium in India, we may compare its
struggles of the medieval European church forposition in the Far East to native states under British
temporal authority. In Japan the great monasteriesrule.
very nearly became the chief military as well as theThere is no interference with creeds provided they
chief political power and this danger was averted onlyrespect ethical and social conventions: interesting
by the destruction of Hieizan and other largedoctrines and rites are appreciated: the Government
establishments in the sixteenth century.accepts and rewards the loyal co-operation of the
What was prevented in Japan did actually happen inBuddhist and Taoist priesthoods but maintains the right
Tibet, for the monasteries became stronger than anyto restrict their activity should it take a wrong political
of the competing secular factions and the principalturn or should an excessive increase in the number of
sect set up an ecclesiastical government singularly likemonks seem a public danger. The Chinese Imperial
the Papacy. In southern countries, such as Burma andGovernment successfully claimed the strangest
Ceylon, Buddhism made no attempt to interfere inpowers of ecclesiastical discipline, since it promoted
politics.and degraded not only priests but deities.
Buddhism and Hinduism both have the idea that theIn both China and Japan there has often been a strong
monk or priest is a person who in virtue of ordinationcurrent of feeling in the official classes against
or birth lives on a higher level than others. He mayBuddhism but on the other hand it often had the
teach and do good but irrespective of that it is thesupport of both emperors and people, and princes not
duty of the laity to support the priesthood. This doctrineinfrequently joined the clergy, especially when it was
is preached by Hinduism in a stronger form than bydesirable for them to live in retirement. Confucianism
Buddhism. The intellectual superiority of the Brahmansand Shintoism, which are ethical and ceremonial rather
as a caste was sufficiently real to ensure itsthan doctrinal, have been in the past to some extent a
acceptance and in politics they had the good sense tolaw to the governments of China and Japan, or more
rule by serving, to be ministers and not kings. In theoryaccurately an aspect of those governments. But for
and to a considerable extent in practice, the Brahmansmany centuries Far Eastern statesmen have rarely
and their gods are not an imperium in imperio but anregarded Buddhism and Taoism as more than
imperium super imperium. The position was possibleinteresting and legitimate activities, to be encouraged
only because, unlike the Papacy and unlike the Lamasand regulated like educational and scientific institutions.