Bangkok, Thailand -- The 20-year jail sentence handed down to Mr
Amphon (last name withheld), aka Ah Kong (southern Chinese for
"grandfather"), for sending four SMS messages deemed offensive to
the monarchy, has stirred a debate on the Thai justice
system.
The relevant "lese majeste" law has also
become a hot topic, as it has increasingly become a tool for
political oppression rather than protection of the monarchy. Among
the many views expressed, some Buddhists cite the law of karma to
justify the verdict, saying that the grandfather got exactly what
he deserved.
It's true that "you reap what you sow" is
more or less the Buddha's teaching on karma at the spiritual level.
But when the teachings are applied to the social level, there are
many other complicating factors at play that many Thais
sarcastically say, "Tham dee dai dee mee thee nai. Tham chua dai
dee mee thom pai." (Show me those who reap benefits from good
deeds. Plenty of people reap benefits from evil
deeds.)
In Sivaka sutta, the Buddha clearly
rejected the view that "whatever a person experiences, be it
pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all is caused by
previous karma". He gave examples of physical, biological and
social factors as additional causes for present experience,
concluding that holders of such views "go beyond what they know by
themselves and what is accepted as true by the
world".
Attributing everything to karma is
therefore not the Buddha's teaching on karmas but the doctrine of
karmic determinism rejected by the Buddha. As it can justify
everything and mean nothing, a statement like "People got flooded
because of karma" only gives a sense of complacency and precludes
legitimate discussions on social justice. The Buddha, in Kutadanta
sutta and Cakkavatti- Sihanada sutta, told stories in which social
phenomena were caused by social and economic injustice such as
mal-distribution of social wealth.
In Tittha sutta, the Buddha also explained
that the doctrine of karmic determinism would mean that people do
good and bad deeds as a result of past karma. Therefore, nobody
would be responsible for their acts, and there would be no desire
and effort to do what should be done and avoid what shouldn't be
done. Obviously such a fatalistic view doesn't constitute a
religion - let alone the Buddha's. For example, believing that
someone is murdered because of karma raises the questions whether
the murderer, as an instrument of karma, is morally responsible,
why he should be punished, or why he shouldn't do it again when he
feels like it.
In addition to the heretical karma
justification, some defend their indifference to Ah Kong's case as
upekkha (equanimity, even-mindedness). But let's call a spade a
spade. Equanimity means detached impartiality - not apathy. Also,
the Buddha taught us - for example, in Subha sutta - to apply each
and every face of Brahamavihara - loving-kindness (metta),
compassion (karuna), empathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity - in
all four quarters; that is, towards all without
discrimination.
If anything, the real test for
loving-kindness and compassion is when misfortune falls on those we
disagree with or even hate; empathetic joy when they meet with good
fortune; and equanimity when hardship falls on us or our loved
ones.
Broad altruistic principles aside, the
Buddha did not prescribe for us what social justice looks like in
concrete terms. It's left to society to work it out. How, then, can
we all agree on a just law, a constitution or a government, despite
our vastly different life situations?
To answer that question, we can try putting
to work the four faces of Brahmavihara in a thought experiment
devised by the American philosopher John Rawls for his theory of
justice. Rawls famously proposed the "veil of ignorance", behind
which one is deprived of all knowledge of one's own personal
characteristics and social and historical circumstances. From this
"Original Position", each of us is asked to define just conditions
for a society, into whose different positions we will be randomly
assigned.
Unaware whether we will be a factory worker
or a hi-so factory owner, red shirt, yellow shirt, dry-zone
resident, wet-zone dweller, handicapped, able-bodied, male, female,
transgender, young, old, straight, gay, atheist, Muslim, Christian,
Buddhist, and so on - Rawls argued that we would all agree on equal
basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and
religion. He also argued that, in order to overcome the
inequalities of natural contingencies, we would select conditions
that are most beneficial to the least advantaged
people.
In real life, we also had no idea who,
where or how we would be born. If we had the chance to design a
society before we came to be who we are, how would we make it out
to be? The author believes that we would come to a conclusion not
very different from Rawls's.
Behind Rawls's veil, we also don't know who
our parents or friends will be. The Buddha took a different
approach in Anamattagga Samyutta when he said "… this samsara is
without discoverable beginning…. It is not easy to find a being who
in this long course has not previously been your mother, your
father, your brother, your sister, your son, your daughter…." His
deep-time analogy emphasising our interconnection with all others
in the world finds its echo in evolutionary biology's conclusion
that we are all related and descended from common
ancestors.
In the final analysis, saying that "My
loved ones could be in any of those social positions (Rawls)" and
"There are not any one of them who are not my loved ones in samsara
(Buddha)" amount to the same thing. By drawing a conceptual veil to
temporarily block out our ego and selfishness, Rawls brings out the
deep-seated sense of justice in us.
The world of experience is said to be
enveloped in seven veils of darkness. Thus, the Buddha is also
called loke-vivattacchaddo ("one who draws aside the veils") to
generate light all around. If the Buddha's analogy sheds light on
our common humanity, the metaphorical darkness under Rawls's veil
of ignorance makes that light shine even brighter. The Buddha would
surely approve of Rawls' theory of justice.
Now the question everyone, regardless of
status in life, must ask is this: If it was actually your
grandfather who sent those four SMS messages, would 20 years of
imprisonment be a fair sentence?
If, after giving it long hard thought, your
conclusion is that Ah Kong's sentence and/or the relevant laws are
at odds with the kind of just society we want to live in, it's time
to declare, "We are all Ah Kong.”