Next Buddhadasa mentions the Buddha's teaching of the Six Directions, which outlines the duties and responsibilities of a person to another in six general relationships. As everything is interrelated, we will be in constant dealings with others and Buddhadasa argues that in today's world, people relate to one another without a mind to the larger picture and their proper place in it. He is not advocating some sort of caste or class system, but rather that in every relationship we get into, we are mindful of our role and that we unselfishly act accordingly. "Zen . . . Aims at increased responsibility towards others and an outpouring of love . . . A genuine love for both individuals and all mankind," as Brandon states. Buddhadasa's Buddhism is very like this Zen, in that because we are not alone or absolved of having contact with others, we therefore have a responsibility to act in accordance with the natural morality of the universe and that is achieved most fully through some form of selfless love, loving-kindness, or compassion. Similarly, Thich Nhat Hanh mentions the six concords or "principles of community life" that the Buddha prescribed: "living together in one place, sharing material resources, observing the same precepts, practicing together and sharing understanding of the Dharma, reconciling viewpoints, and practicing kind speech to avoid all quarrels." As a member of any society, one has a duty to promote harmony and discourage disharmony in one's thought, word and action. It is through this sharing that BuddhadasaÕs Dharmic Socialism is effected, everyone contributing their effort to the whole.

"Moderate in Living, Spending and Possessing"

Buddhadasa sees the human society as both a microcosm and a part of the larger interrelatedness of nature and, as a result, we must all "work both for [our] own good and for the good of others." Everyone has their place in society, but they should all act in their own roles in a way that recognizes the interdependent system that they are a part of by consuming moderately and being generous in giving to that system. There is no reason for one person to be eating food or wearing an outfit that is wildly unequal than that of someone else when some of the members of the society don't even have anything to wear or eat. Because we are just one undetachable part of a larger order, if we selfishly hoard or consume in excess we are then acting in opposition to the underlying morality of the universe and ultimately against a kind of enlightened self-interest.

We must always strive to remain in a state of pakati, or balance, normalcy and equilibrium. If we are too poor to be able to support ourselves, then we should try to work to earn enough money so that we can again fully fulfill our role in the interdependent society. Likewise, if we are too rich or consume too much we are out of synch with this state of normalcy. "'Eat and live only sufficiently' . . . [For ,] [t]his results in a state of normal or balanced happiness (pakati-sukha)." If we are consuming more than we need, we are faced with the disharmonious conflict generated by the resultant disparity of wealth and we also will have a tendency to not have any limits, our egos demanding bigger, better, faster, more. When we "liv[e] with only those material things necessary to sustain us in such a way that we can get by without undue hardship," then we will not only be able to be more giving to and compassionate with fellow sufferers, but we will also be much more free from "our ever growing desires for a kind of artificial beauty" and thus be more able to dissolve our attachment to the material realm.

Donating what we donÕt need is an important part of Buddhadasa's conception of moderation as it circulates individual wealth back into the society, where those in need can then benefit from it. If there is to be any measure of status in society, Buddhadasa proposes, let the sresthi provide us with the example of an honorable aristocrat. The sresthi, the person or people of means from the time of the Buddha Sidhartha gave back to society, in the form of alms houses, what they did not need. This generosity is in sharp contrast to the modern-day "selfish capitalists who oppress and take advantage of the poor." The sreshiÕs alms houses "employed workers in a cooperative effort for the welfare of the entire community." The wealthy capitalist, on the other hand, generally goes directly against Thich Nhat HanhÕs idea of Òpossess[ing] nothing that should belong to others," "accumulat[ing] endless wealth and reinvest[ing] all the profits for [our]selves, while oppressing [our] workers." In order for us to be able to free ourselves from suffering, we must see our fellow human as an equal and treat him in a loving and compassionate way. One step toward that goal is to treat oneÕs fellow workers with respect, in accordance with the idea that everyone is working together for the good of society. As Sivaraksa explains it, ÒOne must share (dana) what one has with others-be it goods, money knowledge, time, labor, or what have you.Ó We are all in this together, so our highest state is to act with the harmony of the all in mind at all times.

"Know and Practice the Dhamma"

In this portion, Buddhadasa relates the notion that practicing the Dhamma is to "perform [your] duty in harmony with others." This idea springs from his concept of an interdependent society where everyone exists only due to their relation to the others. It is "the life-saving duty of all human beings is to help one another to be free from the mentality of me-and-mine." As our suffering is all interconnected such that we can only be truly free from suffering if everyone is, in our search for the end of dukkha, we must assist others along that path as well. As Thich Nhat Hanh eloquently puts it, "Practice is not just for ourselves, but for others and the whole society." If we simply concentrate on our own salvation we shall not be saved because we are only truly saved when we pass beyond the restraints of the ego and do our duty toward society as a whole. In helping others, the first of BuddhadasaÕs duties is "worldly duty." "Worldly duty (lokiya) is the duty to work for the survival of all." If one faction of the group is killing another, the society has not achieved the greatest elimination of dukkha. Hanh is concerned with the sort of ego-driven narrowmindedness that would cause a person, even while supposedly practicing the Dhamma, to insulate herself from others: "There is a relationship between the nature of the self and the nature of suffering, injustice, and war. . . Staying in touch with the reality of suffering keeps us sane and nourishes the wellsprings of understanding (prajna) and compassion (karuna) in us." If we seclude ourselves in a monastery or worse, an ego-bubble, we have ceased to be mindfully observant. If we lose touch with the suffering of others, we lose touch not only with our brothers and sisters, but also with reality.

The second duty is "[t]ranscendental duty (lokuttara), . . . the duty to transcend all worldly oppression" As he expands on this idea in another essay, "[t]here is really only one society in the world: the community of humankind. We must collectively attempt to overcome our common problem, dukkha. . ." Not only is it true that through working together harmoniously we can achieve much more than if we work at odds with each other individually, but also by Òmak[ing] every effort to reconcile and resolve all conflicts," we are acting in accordance with the moral law of the universe. We are all part of the same community and all have the same goal, so working in accordance with the natural law of interconnectedness can also be seen as true efficiency. Hanh writes that "Every true community is a community of concord." When a community is in agreement and all performing their duty for the harmony of the all then that community is working in the manner that will achieve the greatest good, material, mental, and spiritual. Placing oneself at odds with the community can only create disharmony; indeed, if we all had compassion and "h[e]ld firm to the way of the dhamma," then there would be many less social problems of the magnitude that there are today.

"The socialism in which we can trust, Buddhadasa writes, "[is] that which we call love and unity." Love is a virtue that is applauded in every major creed because it is through love that we can look beyond our differences and work together to achieve for the common good. "Constructive action," one of SivaraksaÕs "four dhammas" upon which "human development should rest," "means working together for each otherÕs benefit." Working together is, very simply, the way of the universe and, the proper way for us to relate to each other. Just as our bodies would be unbalanced and unable to function if the mind were to work out of union with the heart, "[h]uman survival depends upon the support of others in the spirit of cooperation and care." Instead of "squandering the earthÕs minerals," for example, in our slavery to our desire for more material wealth, we must not "take anything as self or as belonging to self" if we want to survive for the years to come.

"Unselfishness and Altruism"

As a moral being, we need to recognize that "all people are companions in the process of birth, old age, sickness, and death." Distinctions of nationality, race, class, and the like have no meaning when looked at in this larger, more holistic way. "We need to put our collective energy into discovering the common elements of our humanity in order that we might better communicate and improve our mutual interaction." For, "if we emphasize our differences and use brute force to impose our will upon others, we become like wild animals upsetting the limits of nature and the natural balance of things." "To cause trouble to one another is essentially absurd" when we are all essentially one in our interdependence. Clinging to selfish goals and forgetting about our inexorable ties to everything else, is to be acting in dissonance to our true nature, as "the fulfillment of [that] nature necessarily means the realization of the potentials of others." We are all in this together and all have our own special roles in the Great Chain of Being, with our own particular skills that go along with those roles. In order to Òextinguish the suffering of mankind," we all need to work together.

According to Donald SwearerÕs interpretation, "[c]aring (anurak) in BuddhadasaÕs dhammic sense, . . . is the active expression of our empathetic identification with all life forms-sentient and non-sentient, humane beings and nature.' We must conduct our life in an altruistic manner because, "solving social problems is dependent on living in a socially moral way: acting in the best interests of the entire community . . ." Society is that which sustains us, we are all one in our need for each other; to be self-centered in such a situation is preposterous and very harmful. "Whenever any group sees itself as separate or independent, other groups will respond in like manner. Conflicts arise; people kill each other and so on." To be unselfish is to keep oneÕs own importance in perspective to that of the whole. Because our actions are no longer tainted with harmful desire, we can cooperate altruistically to "establish a peaceful and loving society, the ideal community called Sri-ariva-maitreya."

"Moral in Thought, Word and Action"

Buddhadasa's next point summarizes one or the major themes in his writings, that of a universal morality. "Morality (sila-dhamma)," for Buddhadasa, Óliterally means that which promotes normalcy or equilibrium (pakati)." Morality, for him, is the ruling principle of our lives because it quite simply is the ruling law of all of the universe. To be moral is to be devoid of all individual, ego-generated striving for selfish goals because the state of things is that of interconnectedness. Looking to nature as a guide, Buddhadasa points out that 'Even an atom is a socialist system of independent parts. . . . There is no deceit, no 'me/mine' distinctions; they simply do no exist." We are different from the atoms in that we have some measure of free will, with the possibility for individual ingenuity, but this is not out of keeping with his teachings; there is nothing out of balance with someone acting as an individual, the disharmony gets created when that individual forgets that he is a part of a larger system and acts selfishly.

As part of moral speech, both Hanh and Sivaraksa talk about the need for eliminating harshness from our speech. One of SivaraksaÕs "four dhammas" is that of "pleasant speech (Piyavaca)[which] not only means polite talk, but means speaking truthfully and sincerely, regarding everyone as equal." If we harbor any of these negative qualities of speech, we are not being moral, because we are not acting with a mind to the larger community. HanhÕs formulation is that we should "not utter words that cause division and hatred." After all, "human beings are not very different from lemon trees. If we take good care of them, they will grow properly. Blame never helps. Only love and understanding help people change." If we help each other and speak words of cooperation, then our society will grow to be a mighty orchard. On the other hand, if we are beguiled by our 'egos' into yelling, blaming and uttering fighting words, we will wither and decay.

"Right View (samma-ditthi)"

ÒThe final quenching of dukkha, Ajarn Buddhadasa stressed, comes about only through the relinquishment or 'tossing back' of all egoism and clinging. Peace in our society also depends on the letting go of egoism and selfishness," When we persist in seeing the world in our own narrow-minded way, clinging to our ideas, possessions, loved ones, 'bogged down' with attachment and unable to really see, then there is bond to be conflict when we are presented with the point-of-view of another that is different than ours. One person will not be able to see the value of anotherÕs point of view or even the value of that person herself because she will be so attached to her understanding. If we are truly to "[p]ersonally study, reflect upon, and investigate the Dhamma," or anything in this world, we must empty our mind of any judgements or preconceptions. For, if we do not, we are letting our own 'baggage,' our own noisy ego drown out what is really happening. In HanhÕs words, "Clinging to views can prevent us from arriving at a deeper, more profound understanding of reality." Once we can free ourselves from Dukkha, then we will be able to rejoice in the 'thusness' of life.

Buddhadasa idea of this "void mind" (thai: cit-wang) or ego-less-ness "is more or less 'forgetting oneself,' for example, [like] when we act spontaneously in an emergency or when we are so awed by the power and beauty of Nature that the mind becomes temporarily silent." We are made so powerfully aware of the interconnectedness of life in these examples, that the ego simply cannot continue to control us. In more formal practice, this dissolution of self-concept and selfish feelings is accomplished through strong concentration such as in meditation.

"A 'Cooled' Life"

The ultimate goal, for Buddhadasa, of practice is to free ourselves entirely from any and all defilements. One the chief disciplinary components in the practice of attaining this 'coolness' is that of meditation. "One needs to practice meditation and cultivate mindfulness in order to be alert and ready to save oneself from the domination of defilement." Through the process of meditation, we are slowly able to relax the controlling grip of the so-called ego. In meditation, we are situated in a place that is removed from many of the distractions of modern life, so that we can more deeply examine the fallacious wanderings of this ego. By trying not to focus our mind on anything, becoming like water in its fluidity, we can realize how impermanent and insubstantial all of our daily worries really are. "Do not, therefore, let yourself be distracted by everyday, trivial matters. Concern yourself with what matters more than anythingÑ dhamma." Buddhadasa here entreats us to not be caught up with what is only on the surface of reality. We should, practice mindfulness, which reveals the true depth of life. Hanh adds: "Mindfulness makes life real, deep and worth living. It helps us be in the here and now where true life can be encountered."

The goal and necessary result of living a mindful life and the consequent reduction in defilements is Òthe arising of pakati, of equilibrium and balance in mind, body and speech." This equilibrium is that universal morality or, in similar language, that which brings about "normalcy or the natural balance of things;" a state in which Òthe mind will feel amity and harmony with oneself and others." We are able to see the true state of things if we only eliminate defilements from our lives. Once we are not cluttered by attachment, we are no longer fettered by the ego; we have seen through its fiction, to the true nature of being, the universal moral law of interdependence.

"Dhammic Socialism"

The points Buddhadasa has made in his essay, thus far, have all been at a pretty general level, staying away from the political or the economic in any depth and the ideas have pretty much held together believably as a result. His next idea, however, deals with politics in a much more direct matter. When Buddhadasa explains to us his idea about "dictatorial dhammic socialism," he continues unflinchingly to retain his faith in the power of the dhamma and, in this context, it's ability to be able to direct his ruler towards a politics based on "the good of the whole." Because he is now dealing in much more concrete ideas, we, as a reader are prompted to start raising issues like how much time it takes to do things in the government and how the government achieves consensus among disparate views. In order to try and solve these concerns, Buddhadasa makes his political system "'dictatorial'" in the sense that if his subjects did not do these public works as commanded, they [will be] punished." In my opinion, as his ideas become more concrete, they begin to become more questionable.

Buddhadasa has been heavily criticized for his views that "a political system should be essentially a system of morality (sila-dhamma)" and that it will be possible to install a "king" (dhamma-raja) that will rule both with this "'dictatorial'" fist, yet still be bound by the "Ten Royal Precepts of Virtues," so that he would be sure to keep "the dhamma of nature" in mind. Because we are all interrelated, he argues, our method of governing this social connection should be based on this interrelation and thus moral, not based on power. However, Buddhadasa has previously mentioned the fact that there are going to be people with differing degrees of mental defilements, which, in the political realm, means that some people are going to have to be kept in line by something. He resolves this problem by suggesting this dictatorial ruler which, then avoids all of the problems that a capitalist democracy has in terms of its slowness. Just as it is difficult for one to imagine just how any western country would achieve the transition to the kind of societal consensus of selflessness, which would be necessary to elect this ruler, it is also hard to grasp just how this ruler will defy history by not letting power corrupt him. We might resolve, at this point, that Buddhadasa is talking about a time in the future when there are such a large number of "cool" people, that those who still cling to the ego are simply overwhelmed and unable to affect the outcome of things, but it would still remain to be seen whether his political ideas can actually implemented or not.

In an example of his idea of a dhamma-raja , Buddhadasa describes how King Asoka "purified the sangha by wiping out heretics," a quite uncompassionate action it seems to me, but then Asoka "was not a tyrant. . . . He was a gentle person who acted for the good of the whole society." In his scheme, the king is so morally righteous that he is going to restrain any and all of his ego-driven desires, and simply rule for the benefit of society. If this seems to idealistic, Buddhadasa does allow that "religion does have a place in deposing a ruler who does not embody the dasarajadhamma (ten virtues)." To me it seems that BuddhadasaÕs form of politics will only work if and when most of society will not need the controlling influence of the political and thus he is engaging in the sort of intellectual speculation, not based on practice, that he was earlier speaking against. When there is as much defilement in the world as there is now, there will simply end up being too many revolutions and corrupt rulers for his idea to function as he see it. In summation of this point, Buddhadasa analogies his system of politics to a controlled burn which will "'ward off the forest fire'" of a more destructive form of government; however, I would argue that his politics, as a whole could end as just as bad as governments that exist today. Thus, in his political formulation, as we examined it, Buddhadasa does not address the role of politics as a means of dealing with the problem of disharmony occurring because certain member of the society are much less enlightened and donÕt think along the same lines as the rest (ie: a disciplinary system), but rather addresses politics solely as a means of organizing people of like opinions so as to enable efficient into action. people of like opinions so as to enable efficient into action.

Conclusion

In the preceding material was have seen how BuddhadasaÕs ideas have been echoed in the work of several other Buddhists. They all contain the basic ideas of the importance of regaining the natural balance of interdependence and the fiction of the ego and its necessary dissolution to achieve the end of suffering. Expanding upon these two issues in many ways Buddhadasa and the others seek a world that is free from dukkha, one that has achieved a harmonious peace. Despite the fact that BuddhadasaÕs more concrete political ideas seem to be impractical, as a whole, his writings provide us with a valuable guide along the path towards the elimination of suffering on a day-to-day level and the work of the other authors compliments BuddhadasaÕs beautifully. Although it may seem that there is much repetition in their ideologies, as Hanh puts it, "If we practice these precepts deeply enough, we will recognize that each precept contains every other precept." In much the same way, I have found that the more widely I read, the more I find that peoples' points of view are interrelated and all expressions of the same basic goals and ideas. In fact, it can also be said that the ways in which the points of view of different authors (such as the oneÕs heretofore quoted) fit together and support each other is, in and of itself, a testament to the ideas mentioned above that, through working together in caring cooperation, we can attain mankindÕs highest form: that of being removed from the cycle of the ego's birth and death.