Correction

The classes will meet on August, 10

Stan

Attn: 9:30-11:30 AM HR Students

Dear All,

I had an emergency this morning (Monday, July 30) of which I was not aware until half an hour before our class was supposed to meet. Both our classes -- Intro to Law and Human Rights -- therefore, have been rescheduled to Friday morning (July 10) and will meet at their respective regular hours.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Prof. Starygin

Q&A

I think every body has aleast one answer regarding to the questions posted. It may be clear and if it is not you might raise it again when we meet next class next week either to the professor.

Time Is Up; Thank You All

Dear All,

Thank you for coming up with good questions and coming out here tonight.

A special thanks goes out to Prof. Ahmed and Venerable Ka who generously shared their knowledge of the Buddhist doctrine with us and helped us all understanding the subject better. Thank you so much, guys! As Prof. Ahmed offered his assistance to those of you who might have more Buddhism-related questions, please, feel free to take him up on this and look him up at the South Campus.

Everybody, have a good weekend and I will see you next week,

Stan

Q&A Inventory

Dear All,

I just went through the message board again and looked under all of your questions. My little inventory shows that at least one of us -- Andy, Ka or myself -- has commented on each question that has been posted on this board. Please, let us know by posting to the mainboard, if your questions have not been answered in full or if you have received no comments from anyone.

Thanks,

Stan

hi

Dear Stan,

I have just seen your comment that you said you did not believe me can blog to you.
Actually, i really blog because i left early. Because i have asked ur permission to blog, anyway you have mentioned only 48 hours expired date. But i think i have post to another blog becuase at the first time i created another blog when didn't understand. when i have invited by you, i also follow you but i still confuse to send to another blog.

So now am clear because i've asked Mr. Menka to clearify. Now i can work on it.

Kind regards,

Deth

Commenting in Comment Boxes

Ravy,

Please continue communicating in the comment boxes and only post messages on the mainboard if you want to address the whole group.

Thanks,

Stan

good everning sir i am happy to get your explainantion but i still not clearly about human righ tand buddhism ! for me i think human right it is universal law for man but i think it is form part buddhism ! but for your view you said human right as a concept fairly modern western creation , for my view i think even it is modern western creation it still as a form part of buddhism because it though western concept also part of buddhism! the buddhism is first doctrine that buddha enlignment forst then concept western maybe born in next time so i believe it also cop0y from buddhism theory ! for in view it is right or wrong ? i am happy to get your advice and waiting for more explaine from you

Does Buddhism Even Advocate Human Rights? 3

In Buddhist thinking, Dhamma is a cosmic, or universal law, but it is impersonal and was not created by a law-giver, or god. There is no force to impose this law, neither is there a judge to punish the transgressor. Rather, embedded in the Dhamma is the Law of Kamma, or moral causation. This means that any moral action - anything to do, say or even think that has a moral dimension - has as automatic consequence, or effect.

The Buddha stressed that it is up to you whether you follow your duty or not, whether you respect another person or being's situation or not. He simply pointed out that there will be (good or bad) kammic consequences. The focus is clearly on the protagonist - the person committing the kammic act. A victim doesn't have a right to be protected from a 'sinner' determined to go to 'hell'.

It is important to consider that, like Jesus but unlike Muhammad, the Buddha was not a social reformer. He rejected the opportunity to become a king and institute political reforms. Rather, he founded a sub-community of renunciates - The Sangha. 'Renunciate' means someone who 'drops out' of society - in this case that means becoming a monk or nun. For the Sangha, the Buddha laid down 227 rules (+8 more for nuns) - all of the rules emphasise the responsibilities of the monks and aim for communal harmony. If any modern model can be suggested, the Sangha runs more along the lines of 'benevolent' socialism than liberal democracy from which the concept of universal (individual) human rights emerge.

I'll pause now for responses and questions.

Does Buddhism Even Advocate Human Rights 2

Okay, to continue.

I'd like to pick up three terms I referred to in the last post. Firstly, 'human rights'. The Buddha did not draw an absolute distinction between human and non-human beings. His concern was for all sentient beings - i.e. any creature capable of feelings - in particular capable of feeling pain.

Secondly, 'moral individualism'. Morality is certainly at the heart of the Buddha's teaching (which I'll return to) but what about the second term? The more philosophical aspect of the Buddha's teaching is centred on the claim that there is no such thing as an individual 'Self'. Thinking about yourself is actually the root error that causes suffering. This is a deep and complex matter which I won't develop here but it is fundamental to Buddhist thinking.

Keeping away from the philosophy, therefore, I'll try to explain the implication of the last point for our discussion on human rights. The Buddha never talked about anyone's rights; what he did talk about, at great length, was our responsibilities, or duties.

A central term in Buddhism is 'Dhamma'. It has many connected meanings - some are 'The Truth', 'The Way Things Really Are', 'Natural Law'. It is the way the universe operates when not interfered with by ignorant beings. It is therefore also the way we should behave to be in harmony with the universe - thus it also means the Buddha's teaching (which tells us how to do this) and our duty. The Buddha, therefore, taught kings how to rule according to Dhamma, and he taught children how to follow their Dhamma in relating to parents and teachers etc.

You could argue, as D. Keown does in the article in your coursebook, that if one person or group has duties, by implication another has rights. Thus, if people have a duty not to steal, we have a right to protection of our property. Personally, I'm not persuaded by this argument.

I'll explain why in the next post!

Buddhism and Human Rights

Dear professor Stan and all,

As soon as I have read all 3 chapters thru wrote by Toru Shiotu, Damien Keown and Robert Traer, I have found out that there are certain amount of Buddish concepts are related with present day Human Rights. I would just like to break down one by one what I uderstand from the text and my general knowledges.

Fon instance, by Shiotu has stated taht (all men are created free and equal) from this concept priniciple I can honestly say that this is the Human Rights which is can be also seeen in Cambodia Constitutional Law (Every one equal before law).


I would therefore like to tak about the idea of Buddha-nature. It is meant that Human dignity. It is so cretical to make people aware of that the Buddha nature is not ourselve but all including human and nature.

Therefore, Buddha nature have much in common with natural right concept of people being born free and equal.

In addtion, I would first like to answer right away to the question of author Damien Keown based on my general knowledge and understanding since we are Buddhish relegion. Budda has clearly addressed that (not to steal other properties and not to kill living life). With these 2 concpets, these are contain the concept of Human Rights.

For instance, Buddha adviced not to steal other properties, it is meant that it is the right of property based on constitutional law. If you steal, you committed a crime offen, and consequently you are in prison which is stated in law - no doubt.

The same thing Buddha adviced not to kill. It is meant that you kill someone which law prohibited, you will have the same result in jail. In this concept based on Constitutional law is right to life.

As professs have mention is class, there is duty, there is right and vice versa. As stated in our book on page 71 (hand writing)

Each one of us has a role to pay in sustaning and promoting social justice and orderliness. The Buddha explained every clearly thoese roles as reciprocal duties exiting between parents and children; teacher and pupils, husband and wife, friends and relative .......................................

for me I do understand it was correct, if there is a duty there is right. For example, the teach has a duty to teach his or her students to be good by any means. It a duty perse, there is right inside there. If the teacher don't have right to blame, scold or punish the students, the student may not study hard and consequently the socienty don't have capable or potential Human Resources. So the soceity will not develop at all. It is just one example.

As long as I do know and understand, Buddha have NEVER been forced any one to follow or believe his advices AT ALL. If you think Buddha advice is good do it if not don't follow. It is easy. It is hug and greatly reflect right to chose to believe.

Buddha has also adviced that ( not to destroy any life) it is meant that both Human and Nature are equalllity such as animal and plant. This is precisely affirm that Buddha respect both Human Rights and Natural Rights.

In short, Buddha concepts and advices has plenty of principle related with present day Human Rights as those ALL MEN ARE CREATED FREE AND EQUAL, NOT TO STEAL, NOT TO STEAL AND THERE IS DUTY AND THERE IS RIGHTS.

Does Buddhism Even Advocate 'Human Rights'?

Good evening everyone. I am Professor Andy Ahmed. Since I'm a Buddhist and teaching courses on Buddhism at PUC, Prof. Stan kindly invited me to participate in your discussion.

Reading through the many comments so far, I notice that there are many questions about Buddhsim, but that most of them don't clearly relate to the issue of human rights. Therefore, in my first posts I will briefly outline my view on the topic and invite responses. Later, if I have time I will address other matters. Anyone who still has questions about Buddhist teachings, even if they are not related to human rights or your course, is very welcome to find me in South Campus and talk to me at any time when I'm free.

Okay; the title to my post is quite provocative, but serious. In my view, 'human rights' as a concept is mainly a fairly modern Western creation; thus, the very notion of 'human rights' does not form part of Buddhism. Please don't misunderstand this - I mean that when we analyse many individual human rights we find them in agreement with the Buddha's teachings, but that the principle itself is not Buddhist.

I'm assuming here that when we talk about 'human rights' we have in mind the idea of 'universal human rights' - these are rights that apply to every individual human being. Thus, at heart, they offer protection to the individual. Another, more philosophical term for this would be 'moral individualism'.

To keep my posts to a reasonable length, I'll put them up in the blog in stages. Here I'll pause for you to consider my views, before going on to apply them to Buddhism.

buddha question

after i read buddha theory said that if we do bad we will become bad in next life and if we talk about human right even we do violate human right we will punish by law so we can see real action of punish on human behavior byl law but buddha said will punish in next life ! How can we believe the person who done bad action will become in bad life or punish in the newxt life?

human right and

Human right and buddha

Buddha & Human Right

According to the Buddha teaches that to do good get good, to bad get bad.
But in the real practice:

1- Why a bad people alway live long time, more richer, more power etc.?

According to 5 Panchasila of the Buddha:
- Not to drink
- Not to steal
- Not to kill
- Not to mis a sexual conduct
- Not to tell alie

At the 1st point, not to drink it mean there were a domestic violence since that period.

2- How the Buddha educate people to avoid domestic violence because its violate the human right also?

Question!

Dear Stan,

I have sent my blog since last night but my blog it could not appea.

Could you see my blog?

Best regards,

DETH

Test

Lodeth ask me for her miss posting, so I try to make sure what is the problem.

Buddha Questions

After we disccused about the eight fols paths:
1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speak
4. Right action
5. Right livelyhood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

According to the eight folds path,
1. Does the Buddha's theories help Cambodia society to reduce violence?
2. Buddhist is a state religion in Cambodia, so does the buddhist help the state to protect the human rights?


Thanks in advance for giving me comments!

buddha question?

- I have read some information about buddha teaching, according to buddha teaching told us NOT TO KILL, so according to this I have a little doubt about in case of " SELF DEFENCE "

So what, if someone trying to hurt us, and want to kill us so in order to protect ourselve we have to fight back and it might be we have to kill that person otherwise that person might kill us.

-My other question is I have heard monk always preach about heaven and hell something like you do good recieve good do bad recieve bad. we do good thing this life and save it for next life something like that so is there really next life ?

Buddish and Human Rights

Where was the heaven based on Buddish concepts?

How to be effectivly way for meditation?

Why Buddha wanted to be enlightment?

buddhist theory

After i had read the buddhist scripture, i have found out question.
1 Buddha was born in a royal family and why he wanted to be a enlightment?
2 Does everyone can follow the noble eightfold paths to become like a buddha?

Buddhism play the important role to for human respect in society

Dear, Professor Stan, Andy Ahmed and Venerable Ka.

I have two questions to pose as following :

1- Human rights is respected universally. Due to my concept is that the regions where human rights is not respected war and quarrels always happen. Does my concept is right or wrong ?
based on some reasons, I see that in the world, many countries and many religion and they practice them differently according their traditions. From the Ancient to now, people have been divided into classes and mostly the high ranks have always treated the lower their own slaves so they should not obey or respect them and also act bad thing on them. That reasons makes the uprising of the lower classes against the high ranks. The quarrels became ideology war against each other. So, if the high classes also respect the lower ones no war and quarrels rarely happen. For instance, in democratic theory states that majority lead but they should not reject the minor ideas. In other word, for example, the owner of a factory who rend many employers and they should respect the employers by providing appropriate amount and time in any case problem they should talk to each other without violence. Buddhism have a role of institutions to keep society order. In order to avoid the conflict between the strong and the weak, Buddhism states that people must obey each other, do not steal or robe other properties do not kill other and consider other as their own one. Similarly, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA , Charter 3 and 4 states that everyone have the right to life, liberty and security of person. In the Charter 4, it states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Beside of following governmental law , and regulations people always practice religion, so people mostly believe Buddhism because they believe that the leaders in Buddhism are always devoted especially the monk leaders are undesired ones. Thank for explaining !

1 In the concept of human rights, Buddha always told people not to violate each other because we are human and others are human so we must respect each others but he also instruct that we should not revenge any person who act bad action on us and always states that, “Rancor ends by no Rancor ” . What does it mean? If people make something bad on other that is the violence human. Why Buddha warn the victim from revenging violator. In This case, if we take action against him by law. Do we create Rancor or not ? Thank for your answer!

Buddhism and Human Rights

Dear Professor and all,


About the Buddhism and Human Rights, i feel that Buddha advise people to do only good things by avoiding 5 actions such as: lying, intoxicants, killing, sexual missconduct and animal to be slaughter, inorder to live in happiness, even happiness can be achieved if people obey to Human Rights. However, there are some questions which i still doubt in mind:



1. Natural right said that: All men are created free and equal - don't you think it caused unstable to society? if people do not obey to law and human dignity is not applied.



2. General speaking Buddha said: to be successful in life people need to examine a natural law, therefore, could you explain more what's natural law about, beside "created free and equal"?

- What's the connection between Natural Law, Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Noble Path?



Thank you and looking forward to your respond.

Suggestion

Dear all,
Thanks for those who have posted the questions concerning about the Buddhism and Human Rights. It is great opportunity to clear your doubts you have and to get what you do not know. You can ask any things about Buddhism while we have other two teachers and I to discuss about your questions. I also encourage those who have not yet posted to post questions and then we can discuss on the forum together.

Thanks,

Men Ka

Question about Buddha on Human Right

Hi......

Here I would like to ask some that relate to Buddha on Human Right.

My questions are:

- What is the Buddha view point on Universal Marality on Human Right?

- What is the Buddha view point on Natural Right on Human Right?

- Why Buddha Religion is separated into two Classes? Please explain the Cause and Effec?

I really appreciate for your answer on this.

Questions on Buddhism and Human Rights

1/According to the main theory of Buddha in brief : 1/ Do well, 2/ Do not do bad, 3/ Purify of mind, Can we say the Buddha's theory relate to the Human rights, since Buddha's theory created?

2/ If Buddha's theory really has the principle of Righteousness and Problem of Peace, why shouldn't people be respected around the world?

3/ we can see most people commit in Buddhism of religion, and some countries said religion is the religion of State, and according to the eight fold path, why do we see the civil war in that countries?

Questions on Buddhism and Human Rights

Questions on Buddha and Human Rights

Dear All, Stan, Andy Ahmed, and Venerable Ka

Through what I have read some Buddha's theologies, it lead me to think that religion and law shape people rights, and their rights are limited and will bring people to unequal because all actions are bound by law and believe. For example, no reveng just forgiveness, and sow only good deeds, then equality is meaningless. Thus, if human rights exist in law and religions, there is no equality and my point of view is that people are born equal, but not free.

1. What is equality means in the Buddha's theory, and equal potential for self-realization?

2. Depends on the Dependent Origination, the Buddha said (1). the relationship between individual and society, (2). the relationship between man and nature, so could you please briefly explain me what are the role of Buddhism in political rights and activities?

3. Karma is the result of misdeed, relates to politics in Cambodia what should the leaders treat their people, and how each individual treat the others base on morality and human rights link to Buddha's theologies?

Questionaire for Human Right Interaction class

1. Did Buddha mention the right to live in his teaching?
2. Is killing against human right according to Buddhism?
3. Are those people who make commitment to the Eight Fold Paths be considered good in human right?

Question on Buddism and Human Rights

Dear All, Prof. Andy Ahmed, Venerable Ka and Stan Starygin

After I had learned about the relationship between Buddhism and Human Rights, I also have some questions related to this lessons. My questions as below:

1. If one man stole or kill someone for property and then he bring these wealthy to support his family or share to other poor people. So, in this case, does the man act right or wrong? And when he died, could he reborn again in the next life?

2. When the human beings meditate for the whole life, should he/she become a Buddha? And if not, how long they can be a Buddha?

Thanks.

Questions on Buddism and Human Rights

I have heard about fivefold path, eightfold path , and tenfold path. Therefore, I want you to explain about:

+ What are the fivefold path, eight fold path, and tenfold path about?

+ What all these fold path is used for and it is classified to whom to practice it?

+ What all these fold path related to human right?

Thanks in advance for your answer to this questions.

Buddhism and Human Rights

Four Noble Truths

1. Suffering exists
2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path Noble Eightfold Path

On the third perspective, getting sorrowful is a result/caused of love, namely, the root of sadness comes from desire, no see, no wish, no miss, no need, no love, no lose, and no sad. Meditation only can reach Nirvana (desire ceases). But Human natures always develop their lives by thinking and desire never end.
1. Being asked what kind of attachment shall I have if I decide to teach bad/illiterate person to become a good person in a society (I want them good) and I try to generate my personal growth by doing anything especially endeavor to be a moral one sense of humor (my desire is to make my self best) in order to reach Nirvana?
2. And is that called a duty (right thing to do) for myself and to the others?

Thanks!

Vutha Ponnarith, M/W Morning Class: 9:30-11:30

The Buddha On Human Rights

Dear Prof. Stan
And Dear All

I just find way to have the post it hard for me even if I can access today, so here I am to going to present something about Buddha on Human Rights.

Buddhist Affirmation on Human Right

Here, my presentation on Buddhist and Human Right, indeed, I found that Buddhist theory and ideology they are all the source of human right which is drawn in Cambodia until present day.
Basically, after the presentation of Mr. Mengkar on Thursday I observed that the Buddha was born in the small kingdom, called Kapilavastu. The present of the Buddha is the great time because he comes to survive the people in the world to avoid of being suffering. The old sage, Ascetic, read the physiognomy of Buddha and predict his future life and said that “Someday the prince will attain Enlightenment perfected in both wisdom and virtue and become the teacher and master of men and devas. The prince will be the Savior of the world. In this sense, there are three main phenomenons that Buddha decided to seek way to become the master and succeed the enlightenment. Firstly, Buddha, the prince, saw the white haired old man with dirty rage and tatter, of course, the prince know nothing about this man and ask his attendant what the creature was. Secondly, the prince saw the illness person. Thirdly, he saw the dead man along the road. These phenomenon threat the prince Siddhartha quietly returned to the palace, went to his room, sat down alone, and thought deeply about what he had seen. Finally, he said to himself “It is too frightful that everybody in this world must be dying someday and that no one can prevent this. Then he does mediation to seek way to avoid it and consider looking for the cause and effect of the event that happen such old age, sickness and the death. The prince decides quietly to leave the palace to find the ultimate truth to avoid all those suffering.
Well let say the Buddhist and Human Right the Buddha is very mercy on the human being and the creatures. The Buddha state precisely in the universal morality of human being and transformed the human’s attitude and respect not to commit the sin in their lives but try to practice good deed for the next holy property. This statement is concerning on the creatures that they are also the being they are live not to be killed. Let think the article that the Buddhist Affirmation on Human Right “Buddha transformed attitude of respect and obedience contained in the ethnic Hindu notion of dhama into a universal morality. By admitting members of lower castes and women into Bhiskshu Sangha, the Buddha took “concrete step to destroy the gospel of inequality.”[8] I think that the teaching of Buddha purposely to change forward on the idea of inequality in the ethnic Hindu and encourage them to seek for their natural right and express them that everyone born equal because no one can infringe their rights even those people live in high class or lower class they are still equal.
In short, I think Human Right was born from the beginning it is merely use properly or not it depends. And the Buddha affirms on Human Right with both human being and other creatures based on the universal morality and natural right and Buddha ideology.

Basic Rundown of the Essentials of Buddhism

Four Noble Truths

1. Suffering exists
2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path Noble Eightfold Path


See Table of Three Qualities/Eightfold Path at

http://www.buddhaweb.org/


Three Characteristics of Existence

1. Transiency (anicca)
2. Sorrow (dukkha)
3. Selflessness (anatta)

Hindrances

1. Sensuous lust
2. Aversion and ill will
3. Sloth and torpor
4. Restlessness and worry
5. Sceptical doubt

Factors of Enlightenment

1. Mindfulness
2. Investigation
3. Energy
4. Rapture
5. Tranquillity
6. Concentration
7. Equanimity

Since we, unfortunately, don't have a time allocated to Mahayana Buddhism in this course, below is a short article on the subject and some of the most important differences between Mahayana and Theravada. If you have any questions pertaining to this material or generally an understanding of Mahayana, feel free to post them on here under the title "Questions for Thursday" and we will try to answer them for you then.

Stan



Mahayana Buddhism
Related Resources
• Bodhisattva• Bodhicitta• Karuna• Three Body Doctrine• Schools and Traditions
Elsewhere on the Web
• Mahayana
The Greater VehicleAbout 2000 years ago, approximately 500 years after the Buddha's parinibbana, a form of Buddhism arose known as Mahayana or 'the Greater Vehicle'. Although it had much in common with the kind of Buddhism that had preceded it, there were some distinctive shifts in emphasis which, in time, gave it a unique character. The new impulses that lay behind Mahayana Buddhism were not the result of a single figure or school of thought, but more a change in perspective common to a number of different groups.
The Bodhisattva Ideal
Perhaps the most significant shift was in the role given to the Bodhisattva, a Buddha-to-be whose sole purpose in winning enlightenment is for the benefit of all other beings. The Mahayanists felt that the Theravada emphasis on arahantship or sainthood - winning nibbana for oneself - was a narrow, even 'selfish' goal. The earlier form of Buddhism was referred to, therefore, as Hinayana, the Lesser Vehicle. The arahant ideal seemingly espoused by Hinayana was replaced with the Bodhisattva ideal - an individual, sets out to win enlightenment not for himself or herself but so that others may be relieved of their suffering. To achieve this the individual must attain to six perfections (paramita) - the perfections of giving, morality, patience, vigor, meditation and wisdom. This focus on the Bodhisattva led to the foregrounding of a range of particular celestial such as Avalokiteshvara (Bodhisattva of Compassion) and Manjushri (Bodhisattva of Wisdom) who were to become objects of faith and devotion. What Mahayana Buddhism did was to highlight the importance of compassion as a motivating force and a major factor in spiritual development. This should be the root from which all actions spring.
The Three-Body Doctrine
The Mahayanist also developed a new, more complex interpretation of the Buddha figure. Whereas Theravada Buddhism saw the Buddha as a supremely special flesh-and-blood individual, the Mahayanists conceived the Buddha as having three bodies - the Appearance Body, the Dharma Body and the Enjoyment Body. The Appearance Body was the body that appeared to the world, manifesting itself for the benefit of all beings. The Dharma Body was the Buddha as the embodiment of truth. The Enjoyment Body was the Buddha as he appears in celestial realms to the Bodhisattvas. There were also philosophical developments too with the concept of emptiness or sunyata. Whereas earlier Buddhism had emphasized anatta - the absence of a permanent self - the Mahayanists went further, stating that all phenomena were lacking permanence and an essential identity. To realize this - experientially - was to realize 'emptiness' which is synonymous with realizing nibbana. Along with these developments, new scriptures emerged which, though written much later than the Pali Canon were perceived as capturing the true spirit of the Buddha's message.
Development of the Mahayana
It is within the broad umbrella of Mahayana Buddhism that a number of different schools and traditions came to flourish, including Pure Land, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhism. Certain specific practices also developed, especially the use of visualization of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas in their specific realms. Chanting the names of particular Buddhas such as Amitabha were seen to be a means of earning merit and a means to a higher rebirth. There is no doubt that what the Tibetans call nying-je or compassion is a quality that is highly valued in Mahayana Buddhism. In the words of the Dalai Lama: 'The essence of the Mahayana school...is compassion. In Mahayana Buddhism you sacrifice yourself in order to attain salvation for the sake of other beings' (from 'The Dalai Lama's Book of Wisdom').

Excerpt on the Three Baskets

This is an excerpt from the same article I posted here earlier (see below this post) to which I wanted to draw your attention since Ka discussed this during the Thursday session. Please bear in mind that it was not the Historical Buddha (Siddhartha/Shakyamuni) who categorized the body of custom and knowledge that had been by then developed (the Dharma) into the Three Baskets but it was done by the Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns) who did this over 2000 years after the death of the Historical Buddha --

"By 250 BCE the Sangha had systematically arranged and compiled these teachings into three divisions: the Vinaya Pitaka (the "basket of discipline" — the texts concerning the rules and customs of the Sangha), the Sutta Pitaka (the "basket of discourses" — the sermons and utterances by the Buddha and his close disciples), and the Abhidhamma Pitaka (the "basket of special/higher doctrine" — a detailed psycho-philosophical analysis of the Dhamma)"

Sumtotal of Our Discussions on Buddhism

Hi All,

Below is an article that works as a sumtotal of what Ka and I spoke about this past week. It also has the most essential Buddhist terminology in English and Pali. Take a look.

Stan


What is Theravada Buddhism?
by
John Bullitt
Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the author.
Copyright © 2005 John Bullitt
Access to Insight edition © 2005
For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such.
thera "elders" +vada "word, doctrine")-->
Theravada (pronounced — more or less — "terra-VAH-dah"), the "Doctrine of the Elders," is the school of Buddhism that draws its scriptural inspiration from the Tipitaka, or Pali canon, which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the Buddha's teachings.1 For many centuries, Theravada has been the predominant religion of continental Southeast Asia (Thailand, Myanmar/Burma, Cambodia, and Laos) and Sri Lanka. Today Theravada Buddhists number well over 100 million worldwide.2 In recent decades Theravada has begun to take root in the West.
Many Buddhisms, One Dhamma-vinaya
The Buddha — the "Awakened One" — called the religion he founded Dhamma-vinaya — "the doctrine and discipline." To provide a social structure supportive of the practice of Dhamma-vinaya (or Dhamma for short [Sanskrit: Dharma]), and to preserve these teachings for posterity, the Buddha established the order of bhikkhus (monks) and bhikkhunis (nuns) — the Sangha — which continues to this day to pass his teachings on to subsequent generations of laypeople and monastics, alike.
As the Dhamma continued its spread across India after the Buddha's passing, differing interpretations of the original teachings arose, which led to schisms within the Sangha and the emergence of as many as eighteen distinct sects of Buddhism.3 One of these schools eventually gave rise to a reform movement that called itself Mahayana (the "Greater Vehicle")4 and that referred to the other schools disparagingly as Hinayana (the "Lesser Vehicle"). What we call Theravada today is the sole survivor of those early non-Mahayana schools.5 To avoid the pejorative tone implied by the terms Hinayana and Mahayana, it is common today to use more neutral language to distinguish between these two main branches of Buddhism. Because Theravada historically dominated southern Asia, it is sometimes called "Southern" Buddhism, while Mahayana, which migrated northwards from India into China, Tibet, Japan, and Korea, is known as "Northern" Buddhism.6
Pali: The Language of Theravada Buddhism
The language of the Theravada canonical texts is Pali (lit., "text"), which is based on a dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan that was probably spoken in central India during the Buddha's time.7 Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's cousin and close personal attendant, committed the Buddha's sermons (suttas) to memory and thus became a living repository of these teachings.8 Shortly after the Buddha's death (ca. 480 BCE), five hundred of the most senior monks — including Ananda — convened to recite and verify all the sermons they had heard during the Buddha's forty-five year teaching career.9 Most of these sermons therefore begin with the disclaimer, "Evam me sutam" — "Thus have I heard."
After the Buddha's death the teachings continued to be passed down orally within the monastic community, in keeping with an Indian oral tradition that long predated the Buddha.10 By 250 BCE the Sangha had systematically arranged and compiled these teachings into three divisions: the Vinaya Pitaka (the "basket of discipline" — the texts concerning the rules and customs of the Sangha), the Sutta Pitaka (the "basket of discourses" — the sermons and utterances by the Buddha and his close disciples), and the Abhidhamma Pitaka (the "basket of special/higher doctrine" — a detailed psycho-philosophical analysis of the Dhamma). Together these three are known as the Tipitaka, the "three baskets." In the third century BCE Sri Lankan monks began compiling a series of exhaustive commentaries to the Tipitaka; these were subsequently collated and translated into Pali beginning in the fifth century CE. The Tipitaka plus the post-canonical texts (commentaries, chronicles, etc.) together constitute the complete body of classical Theravada literature.
Pali was originally a spoken language with no alphabet of its own. It wasn't until about 100 BCE that the Tipitaka was first fixed in writing, by Sri Lankan scribe-monks,11 who wrote the Pali phonetically in a form of early Brahmi script.12 Since then the Tipitaka has been transliterated into many different scripts (Devanagari, Thai, Burmese, Roman, Cyrillic, to name a few). Although English translations of the most popular Tipitaka texts abound, many students of Theravada find that learning the Pali language — even just a little bit here and there — greatly deepens their understanding and appreciation of the Buddha's teachings.
No one can prove that the Tipitaka contains any of the words actually uttered by the historical Buddha. Practicing Buddhists have never found this problematic. Unlike the scriptures of many of the world's great religions, the Tipitaka is not regarded as gospel, as an unassailable statement of divine truth, revealed by a prophet, to be accepted purely on faith. Instead, its teachings are meant to be assessed firsthand, to be put into practice in one's life so that one can find out for oneself if they do, in fact, yield the promised results. It is the truth towards which the words in the Tipitaka point that ultimately matters, not the words themselves. Although scholars will continue to debate the authorship of passages from the Tipitaka for years to come (and thus miss the point of these teachings entirely), the Tipitaka will quietly continue to serve — as it has for centuries — as an indispensable guide for millions of followers in their quest for Awakening.
A Brief Summary of the Buddha's Teachings
The Four Noble Truths
Shortly after his Awakening, the Buddha delivered his first sermon, in which he laid out the essential framework upon which all his later teachings were based. This framework consists of the Four Noble Truths, four fundamental principles of nature (Dhamma) that emerged from the Buddha's radically honest and penetrating assessment of the human condition. He taught these truths not as metaphysical theories or as articles of faith, but as categories by which we should frame our direct experience in a way that conduces to Awakening:
Dukkha: suffering, unsatisfactoriness, discontent, stress;
The cause of dukkha: the cause of this dissatisfaction iscraving (tanha) for sensuality, for states of becoming, and states of no becoming;
The cessation of dukkha: the relinquishment of that craving;
The path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha: the Noble Eightfold Path of right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.
Because of our ignorance (avijja) of these Noble Truths, because of our inexperience in framing the world in their terms, we remain bound to samsara, the wearisome cycle of birth, aging, illness, death, and rebirth. Craving propels this process onward, from one moment to the next and over the course of countless lifetimes, in accordance with kamma (Skt. karma), the universal law of cause and effect. According to this immutable law, every action that one performs in the present moment — whether by body, speech, or mind itself — eventually bears fruit according to its skillfulness: act in unskillful and harmful ways and unhappiness is bound to follow; act skillfully and happiness will ultimately ensue.13 As long as one remains ignorant of this principle, one is doomed to an aimless existence: happy one moment, in despair the next; enjoying one lifetime in heaven, the next in hell.
The Buddha discovered that gaining release from samsara requires assigning to each of the Noble Truths a specific task: the first Noble Truth is to be comprehended; the second, abandoned; the third, realized; the fourth, developed. The full realization of the third Noble Truth paves the way for Awakening: the end of ignorance, craving, suffering, and kamma itself; the direct penetration to the transcendent freedom and supreme happiness that stands as the final goal of all the Buddha's teachings; the Unconditioned, the Deathless, Unbinding — Nibbana (Skt. Nirvana).is Nibbana and (2) NT3 paves the way to that radical opening, which is Nibbana. Ajaan Mun made the useful observation that it makes no sense to speak of having a duty to do something to/with Nibbana. In other words, in the presence of Nibbana, you don't realize Nibbana. So it's more prudent to regard our duty vis-a-vis NT3 as the perfection of NT3; to perfect the practice of relinquishing clinging and craving. When NT3 has been perfected, the opening to Nibbana occurs, and we arrive at something that lies entirely outside the realm of the 4NTs.
-->
The Eightfold Path and the Practice of Dhamma
Because the roots of ignorance are so intimately entwined with the fabric of the psyche, the unawakened mind is capable of deceiving itself with breathtaking ingenuity. The solution therefore requires more than simply being kind, loving, and mindful in the present moment. The practitioner must equip him- or herself with the expertise to use a range of tools to outwit, outlast, and eventually uproot the mind's unskillful tendencies. For example, the practice of generosity (dana) erodes the heart's habitual tendencies towards craving and teaches valuable lessons about the motivations behind, and the results of, skillful action. The practice of virtue (sila) guards one against straying wildly off-course and into harm's way. The cultivation of goodwill (metta) helps to undermine anger's seductive grasp. The ten recollections offer ways to alleviate doubt, bear physical pain with composure, maintain a healthy sense of self-respect, overcome laziness and complacency, and restrain oneself from unbridled lust. And there are many more skills to learn.
The good qualities that emerge and mature from these practices not only smooth the way for the journey to Nibbana; over time they have the effect of transforming the practitioner into a more generous, loving, compassionate, peaceful, and clear-headed member of society. The individual's sincere pursuit of Awakening is thus a priceless and timely gift to a world in desperate need of help.
Discernment (pañña)
The Eightfold Path is best understood as a collection of personal qualities to be developed, rather than as a sequence of steps along a linear path. The development of right view and right resolve (the factors classically identified with wisdom and discernment) facilitates the development of right speech, action, and livelihood (the factors identified with virtue). As virtue develops so do the factors identified with concentration (right effort, mindfulness, and concentration). Likewise, as concentration matures, discernment evolves to a still deeper level. And so the process unfolds: development of one factor fosters development of the next, lifting the practitioner in an upward spiral of spiritual maturity that eventually culminates in Awakening.
The long journey to Awakening begins in earnest with the first tentative stirrings of right view — the discernment by which one recognizes the validity of the four Noble Truths and the principle of kamma. One begins to see that one's future well-being is neither predestined by fate, nor left to the whims of a divine being or random chance. The responsibility for one's happiness rests squarely on one's own shoulders. Seeing this, one's spiritual aims become suddenly clear: to relinquish the habitual unskillful tendencies of the mind in favor of skillful ones. As this right resolve grows stronger, so does the heartfelt desire to live a morally upright life, to choose one's actions with care.
At this point many followers make the inward commitment to take the Buddha's teachings to heart, to become "Buddhist" through the act of taking refuge in the Triple Gem: the Buddha (both the historical Buddha and one's own innate potential for Awakening), the Dhamma (both the Buddha's teachings and the ultimate Truth towards which they point), and the Sangha (both the unbroken monastic lineage that has preserved the teachings since the Buddha's day, and all those who have achieved at least some degree of Awakening). With one's feet thus planted on solid ground, and with the help of an admirable friend or teacher (kalyanamitta) to guide the way, one is now well-equipped to proceed down the Path, following in the footsteps left by the Buddha himself.
Virtue (sila)
Right view and right resolve continue to mature through the development of the path factors associated with sila, or virtue — namely, right speech, right action, and right livelihood. These are condensed into a very practical form in the five precepts, the basic code of ethical conduct to which every practicing Buddhist subscribes: refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and using intoxicants. Even the monks' complex code of 227 rules and the nuns' 311 ultimately have these five basic precepts at their core.
Concentration (samadhi)
Having gained a foothold in the purification of one's outward behavior through the practice of sila, the essential groundwork has been laid for delving into the most subtle and transformative aspect of the path: meditation and the development of samadhi, or concentration. This is spelled out in detail in the final three path factors: right effort, by which one learns how to favor skillful qualities of mind over unskillful ones; right mindfulness, by which one learns to keep one's attention continually grounded in the present moment of experience; and right concentration, by which one learns to immerse the mind so thoroughly and unwaveringly in its meditation object that it enters jhana, a series of progressively deeper states of mental and physical tranquillity.
Right mindfulness and right concentration are developed in tandem through satipatthana ("frames of reference" or "foundations of mindfulness"), a systematic approach to meditation practice that embraces a wide range of skills and techniques. Of these practices, mindfulness of the body (especially mindfulness of breathing) is particularly effective at bringing into balance the twin qualities of tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana), or clear-seeing. Through persistent practice, the meditator becomes more adept at bringing the combined powers of samatha-vipassana to bear in an exploration of the fundamental nature of mind and body.14 As the meditator masters the ability to frame his immediate experience in terms of anicca (inconstancy), dukkha, and anatta (not-self), even the subtlest manifestations of these three characteristics of experience are brought into exquisitely sharp focus. At the same time, the root cause of dukkha — craving — is relentlessly exposed to the light of awareness. Eventually craving is left with no place to hide, the entire karmic process that fabricates dukkha unravels, the eightfold path reaches its noble climax, and the meditator gains, at long last, his or her first unmistakable glimpse of the Unconditioned — Nibbana.
Awakening
This first enlightenment experience, known as stream-entry (sotapatti), is the first of four progressive stages of Awakening, each of which entails the irreversible shedding or weakening of several fetters (samyojana), the manifestations of ignorance that bind a person to the cycle of birth and death. Stream-entry marks an unprecedented and radical turning point both in the practitioner's current life and in the entirety of his or her long journey in samsara. For it is at this point that any lingering doubts about the truth of the Buddha's teachings disappear; it is at this point that any belief in the purifying efficacy of rites and rituals evaporates; and it is at this point that the long-cherished notion of an abiding personal "self" falls away. The stream-enterer is said to be assured of no more than seven future rebirths (all of them favorable) before eventually attaining full Awakening.
But full Awakening is still a long way off. As the practitioner presses on with renewed diligence, he or she passes through two more significant landmarks: once-returning (sakadagati), which is accompanied by the weakening of the fetters of sensual desire and ill-will, and non-returning (agati), in which these two fetters are uprooted altogether. The final stage of Awakening — arahatta — occurs when even the most refined and subtle levels of craving and conceit are irrevocably extinguished. At this point the practitioner — now an arahant, or "worthy one" — arrives at the end-point of the Buddha's teaching. With ignorance, suffering, stress, and rebirth having all come to their end, the arahant at last can utter the victory cry first proclaimed by the Buddha upon his Awakening:
"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done! There is nothing further for the sake of this world."
[MN 36]
The arahant lives out the remainder of his or her life inwardly enjoying the bliss of Nibbana, secure at last from the possibility of any future rebirth. When the arahant's aeons-long trail of past kamma eventually unwinds to its end, the arahant dies and he or she enters into parinibbana — total Unbinding. Although language utterly fails at describing this extraordinary event, the Buddha likened it to what happens when a fire finally burns up all its fuel.
"The serious pursuit of happiness"
Buddhism is sometimes naïvely criticized as a "negative" or "pessimistic" religion and philosophy. Surely life is not all misery and disappointment: it offers many kinds of happiness and sublime joy. Why then this dreary Buddhist obsession with unsatisfactoriness and suffering?
The Buddha based his teachings on a frank assessment of our plight as humans: there is unsatisfactoriness and suffering in the world. No one can argue this fact. Dukkha lurks behind even the highest forms of worldly pleasure and joy, for, sooner or later, as surely as night follows day, that happiness must come to an end. Were the Buddha's teachings to stop there, we might indeed regard them as pessimistic and life as utterly hopeless. But, like a doctor who prescribes a remedy for an illness, the Buddha offers both a hope (the third Noble Truth) and a cure (the fourth). The Buddha's teachings thus give cause for unparalleled optimism and joy. The teachings offer as their reward the noblest, truest kind of happiness, and give profound value and meaning to an otherwise grim existence. One modern teacher summed it up well: "Buddhism is the serious pursuit of happiness."
Theravada Comes West
Until the late 19th century, the teachings of Theravada were little known outside of southern Asia, where they had flourished for some two and one-half millennia. In the past century, however, the West has begun to take notice of Theravada's unique spiritual legacy in its teachings of Awakening. In recent decades this interest has swelled, with the monastic Sangha from various schools within Theravada establishing dozens of monasteries across Europe and North America. Increasing numbers of lay meditation centers, founded and operated independently of the monastic Sangha, strain to meet the demands of lay men and women — Buddhist and otherwise — seeking to learn selected aspects of the Buddha's teachings.
The turn of the 21st century presents both opportunities and dangers for Theravada in the West: Will the Buddha's teachings be patiently studied and put into practice, and allowed to establish deep roots in Western soil, for the benefit of many generations to come? Will the current popular Western climate of "openness" and cross-fertilization between spiritual traditions lead to the emergence of a strong new form of Buddhist practice unique to the modern era, or will it simply lead to confusion and the dilution of these priceless teachings? These are open questions; only time will tell.
Spiritual teachings of every description inundate the media and the marketplace today. Many of today's popular spiritual teachings borrow liberally from the Buddha, though only rarely do they place the Buddha's words in their true context. Earnest seekers of truth are therefore often faced with the unsavory task of wading through fragmentary teachings of dubious accuracy. How are we to make sense of it all?
Fortunately the Buddha left us with some simple guidelines to help us navigate through this bewildering flood. Whenever you find yourself questioning the authenticity of a particular teaching, heed well the Buddha's advice to his stepmother:
[The teachings that promote] the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
[As for the teachings that promote] the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'
[AN 8.53]
The truest test of these teachings, of course, is whether they yield the promised results in the crucible of your own heart. The Buddha presents the challenge; the rest is up to you.
Notes
1. Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction (fifth edition) by R.H. Robinson, W.L. Johnson, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 2005), p. 46.
2. This estimate is based on data appearing in CIA World Factbook 2004. South Asia's largest Theravada Buddhist populations are found in Thailand (61 million Theravadans), Myanmar (38 million), Sri Lanka (13 million), and Cambodia (12 million).
3.Buddhist Religions, p. 46.
4. Mahayana today includes Zen, Ch'an, Nichiren, Tendai, and Pure Land Buddhism.
5.Guide Through The Abhidhamma Pitaka by Nyanatiloka Mahathera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1971), pp. 60ff.
6. A third major branch of Buddhism emerged much later (ca. 8th century CE) in India:Vajrayana, the "Diamond Vehicle." Vajrayana's elaborate system of esoteric initiations, tantric rituals, and mantra recitations eventually spread north into central and east Asia, leaving a particularly strong imprint on Tibetan Buddhism. See Buddhist Religions, pp. 124ff. and chapter 11.
7. Modern scholarship suggests that Pali was probably never spoken by the Buddha himself. In the centuries after the Buddha's death, as Buddhism spread across India into regions of different dialects, Buddhist monks increasingly depended on a common tongue for their Dhamma discussions and recitations of memorized texts. It was out of this necessity that the language we now know as Pali emerged. See Bhikkhu Bodhi's Introduction in Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 1999), pp. 1ff, and n. 1 (p. 275) and "The Pali Language and Literature" by the Pali Text Society (» http://www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lite.htm; 15 April 2002).
8. Great Disciples of the Buddha by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker (Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 1997), pp. 140, 150.
9. Buddhist Religions, p. 48.
10. The Hindu Vedas, for example, predate the Buddha by at least a millennium (Buddhist Religions, p. 2).
11. Buddhist Religions, p. 77.
12. Anandajoti Bhikkhu, personal communication.
13. See Dhp 1-2.
14. This description of the unified role of samatha and vipassana is based upon the Buddha's meditation teachings as presented in the suttas (see "One Tool Among Many" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu). The Abhidhamma and the Commentaries, by contrast, state that samatha and vipassana are two distinct meditation paths (see, for example, The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation by H. Gunaratana, ch. 5). It is difficult to reconcile these two views just from studying the texts; any remaining doubts and concerns about the roles of samatha and vipassana are best resolved through the actual practice of meditation. -->
Revised: Saturday 2007-02-10http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html

Discussion on Various Issues of Human Rights and Buddhism

Dear all,

Please note that the discussion on Human Rights and Buddhism will be held on this forum Thursday, 26 July 2007, 6-8 PM and will be facilitated by Prof. Andy Ahmed, Venerable Ka and me.

Please post your questions (not in excess of 3 per student) here no later than Tuesday, 24 July 2007.

Thanks,

Stan

Comparative Hammurabi and Magna Carta on Criminal law

Hi my name is thol ravy student in class Human Right this is my opinion in the code of law about Hammurabi and Magna Carta
.
In Hammurabi is code focus on king right to do anything so if one accuse another with capital offense, but can not prove the charge , the accuse will be kill. At that time it is code of Hammurabi mean according to article 3 said that “If anyone bring an accusation of any crime before elder, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death. Mean if we can not prove the charged we can not accuse someone. Accuse or punish another base on evidence or witness. It is good code because if we do not have this code to rule everybody easy to get accuse without reason from another that make us lost a lot of time and difficult to judge so if someone want to accuse another must have prove for judge .

#5
other case if judge decide in a case and later if turns out that he was wrong ,he will have to pay twelve time as much as he set for the accuse and will never be allow to judge anymore according to article 5 said that If a judge try a case, reach a decision ,and present his judgment in writing , if later error shall appear in his decisions, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve time the fine set by him in the case. And he shall be publicly remove from judge’s bench and never again shall he sit there to render judgment, mean judge must be carefully in decision what is right or wrong so before judge something must be investigate to fine evidence or prove to accuse, and judge must be has skillful and neutral so it is justice.

#6
If one steals the son of another, he will be killed and buried at the breach relate to article 6 of Hammurabi said if any one steal the property of a temple or the court, he shall be put to death and also the one who receive the stolen thing from him shall be put to death so it is important and good law because if we arrest someone who stolen our property with evidence or we have witness we should follow article 6 because we have enough reason to punish person who do illegal action also punish person who relate with robber like who get benefit from robber also punish as robber if we have enough evidence or real situation.

Magna Carta is code of great charter of freedom that led the rule of constitution law and it is limit power of king and focus on liberties.
#38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witness to the truth of it mean all official judge must have a skill to judge anything or show enough reason for supported statement that can make us believable so judge can not decision what right or wrong without evidence or witness ont only base on unsupported statement.
#39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned ,or stripped of his right or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprive of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force again him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. It can show that every body has equal right in society if we do not have illegal action or do effect to society so one can deprive our right we have the same right to do anything what we want that under the law of state.

Good work, everyone!

Thank you all for coming out. Have a good night. I will see you all Monday next week.

Stan

Sopheak --

Could you post your messages in the comment section of the relevant post, rather than on the board?

Thanks,

Stan

To KA

Thank for your question. I think that the death penalty is more benefit to state than their citizen.Cus death is against the human right even in some small case also put them to death. So it is not good for citizen in the time of Harmurabi. Hope I answer to your question.

List of Contributors

The following students have submitted a comparative paper on the Code of Hammurabi v Magna Carta:

SE John

IM Meng

Men Ka

Nay Sitha

Sang morada

Key Manera

Muy Sophek

sothearith keo

Moen SavoeunVong Dara

TES Loudeth

chansath

Vutha Ponnarith

Than Sakseka and Kray Sokkanha

Hello Prof. Stan

I'd read and posted comments on many posts of friends because I am not clear s.th, but I don't see mine appear on friends comments.......

Posts with "0" Comments

Hi all,

Those of you who are starting to get in now, please, focus on the papers that have not been commented on by anyone yet. For that, look at the number in parantheses next to the "comments" sign and review the papers with a "0" in the parantheses.

Thanks,

Stan

Discussion Format Reminder

Dear All,

Please bear in mind that when you publish your comments, you will need to click on the comments link underneath the paper you are commenting on. Furthermore, to see what other reviewers had to say about your paper you will need to click on the comments icon underneath your own paper which is where you can also respond to other reviewers' comments and answer their questions.

I am looking forward to the discussion tonight.

Stan

The comparisons between family law of the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta

The Code of Hammurabi was created in 1780 BC. The Code focus on agriculture, property damage, women’s rights, marriage rights, children’s rights, slave rights, murder, death, and injury. In addition, for Magna Carta was an English charter originally story and created in 1215. As a result, both Hammurabi and Carta produced the law of family in the different concepts. According to family law in the Code of Hammurabi, most articles are focused on marriage couple who have born children or not because in Hammurabi’s Government was interested on child birth in order to produce more soldiers for their nation; therefore, the law set an obligation to all marriage couple to have children; for instance, article 128 stated that if a man take a woman to be wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife of him. This article means that if a marriage couple won’t have relationship with each other then they will not have children. If the children were not born, then the rate of solider was declined so, a couple after marriage must have relationship with each other and if not, then it will not consider as a marriage; consequently, a woman or a man can be free and remarry to other people and have children and their children will become a soldier when they are grown up. In addition, Monogamy was the rule in the Code of Hammurabi, but a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who was no wife) to bear him children; for example, article146 stated that if a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servant. This article means that the man can take only one wife even if she have no children for him, but she give him a maid servant to bear him children and even this maid assume to be equal to the wife, but that doesn’t mean this maid can become as a second wife because he may keep her as a slave. The most important in this article 146 is shown about Monogamy as a rule in the code and it is also shown that government really concerned on the child birth. On the other hand, only few clusters such as cluster 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11 in the Magna Carta that stated relate to family situation included inheritance and paying debt, but not interested much on child birth as family law in the Code of Hammurabi because this law is created by the rebellion of the barons to limit the power of the king; therefore, it might not focused much on family situations.

Another different ideas between family law in the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta is that according to article 177 in the Code of Hammurabi has shown that a widow after her husband died, then she must took her’s husband place in family, living in his house, and bringing up the children. Moreover, she is allowed to remarry but only with judicial consent and the judge will examine the estate and hand it over to a widow and her new husband, but both of them could not be able to sell a single utensil of her first husband’s property in the house. In this case of remarried, all her children must shared equally in her dowry and the first’s husband gift fell to his children or to her selection among them, but if she didn’t remarry then she could live in her husband’s house and took a child’s share on the division of his estate when children grown up. This article is kind of set an obligation to a widow to take care of her husband’s properties in order to raise up her children and give those properties to children when they are grown up even she is allowed to remarry, but she could not take her husband’s properties to sell for money in order to enjoy happiness with her new husband. In contrast, a cluster 7 in the Magna Carta has shown that a widow after her husband died, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance, but in cluster 8 stated that no widow shall be compelled to marry as long as she want, but must be give security by royal consent. Moreover in cluster 3 and 4, if there were a heird who under age, then the kin could assume as the guardianship of the estate and the guardianship can enjoy all the profits until the heir came of age to get his inheritance.

In conclusion, we can see that the differences between family law in the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta are that the Code of Hammurabi has set up a lot of articles that relate to family law which has also set up an obligation to couple to have children for becoming soldiers of the nation and set an obligation to the couple to respect the rule of Monogamy by having only a wife or husband; moreover, the law also set up an obligation to a widow even she has remarried but must be examine by judicial consent, and she still have the duties to be a wife and mother who taking care of husband’s property in order to raise up the children and give to children when they are grown up. On the other hands, there were few clusters in the Magna Carta that focused on family law, but still some clusters in family law of the Magna Carta has shown the different from the Code of Hammurabi in case of husband death, the widow could avoid from compelling to marry by royal consent, but may have an inheritance. If the inheritance is given to the heir under age, the guardianship should take care of it and get benefits on it until the heir reach the age of getting inheritance. Therefore, both family laws of Hammurabia and Carta even had different explain and thought but they looked good because both have same objective to serve the people and made the country got peaceful and avoid from the conflict by let people lived in happy life.
(Group work by Than Sakseka and Kray Sokkanha)

Hammurabi VS Magna Carta “Criminal Law, Human Rights, Justices”

Prof. Stan

Vutha Ponnarith (M/W, 9:30-11:30)

Hammurabi VS Magna Carta “Criminal Law, Human Rights, Justices”

Code 252 “If he kills a man’s slave, he shall pay one third of a mina”

This code meant that Everyone can kill any person that is slavery. Slavery at that time is legally, which were trafficked like animal and no freedom to control their lives, seem their lives have no value and meaning. Focusing on “If he kill a man’s slave,” that mean, if he hates that slave because of somewhat, then he can kill the slave at any time and let this case as an “unintentional killing”? Morally, money cannot buy happiness even life (human) This code is unjustified in the name of inhumanity as a living being, according to University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library, Art. 3, p. 159, “Every one has the right to life, liberty & security of person.”

Charter 38 “In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witness to the truth of it”
This statement is very clear and sound unbiased. For the word “in future” that mean this law will be maintained permanently forever because of “Discretion” for many cases to those whom accused with a case that illegal even committed or not committed a crime. Furthermore, it’s likely the judgment would offer a chance to the accused one reaching evident for debate in order to prove the case, which he/she involved to settle. According to Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or imprisonment, University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library, Principle 8, p. 215, Human Right & World Politics, by Prof. Stan, “Person in detention shall be subjected to treatment appropriate to their unconvinced status. Accordingly, they shall, whenever possible, be kept separately from imprison person”

Analytic comparing: Code 252 of Mammurabi and Magna Carta, Charter 38 is very completely difference for the judgments, because of updated/developed generation, namely, period by period. Because of as we can see, Hammurabi is not a democratic kingdom, all the decisions were decided by the king who had more powerful, aimed to act any thing to keep his power still stable and for the high ranking officers under his control as well, so dependently for the poors. (Slave was legal even both intention or/and unintentional killing to slavery was no matter just paying money) It is different from Magna Carta, despite some charters are not qualified, but most charters aim to promote peace and democracy. For instance, in Church, monarch would appoint a candidate with the approval of the monks of Canterbury that controlled by Pope. This display “Two ideas are better than one” that will lead the country qualify and happiness because of agreement.

Hammurabi VS Magna Carta “Criminal Law, Human Rights, Justices”

Prof. Stan

Vutha Ponnarith (M/W, 9:30-11:30)

Hammurabi VS Magna Carta “Criminal Law, Human Rights, Justices”

Code 252 “If he kills a man’s slave, he shall pay one third of a mina”

This code meant that Everyone can kill any person that is slavery. Slavery at that time is legal, which were trafficked like animal and no freedom to control their lives, seem their lives have no value and meaning. Focusing on “If he kill a man’s slave,” that mean, if he hates that slave because of somewhat, then he can kill the slave at any time and let this case as an “unintentional killing”? Morally, money can buy happiness even life (human) This code is unjustified in the name of inhumanity as a being, according to University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library, Art. 3, p. 159, “Every one has the right to life, liberty & security of person.”

Charter 38 “In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witness to the truth of it” This statement is very clear and sound unbiased, for the word “in future” that mean this law will be maintained permanently forever because of “Discretion” for many cases to those whom accused with a case that illegal or/even committed or not committed a crime. Furthermore, it’s likely the judgment would offer a chance to the accused one reaching evident for debate in order to prove the case, which he/she involved to settle. According to Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or imprisonment, University of Minnesota, Human Rights Library, Principle 8, p. 215, Human Right & World Politics, by Prof. Stan, “Person in detention shall be subjected to treatment appropriate to their unconvinced status. Accordingly, they shall, whenever possible, be kept separately from imprison person”

Analytic comparing: Code 252 of Mammurabi and Magna Carta, Charter 38 is very completely difference for the judgments, because of updated/developed generation, namely, period by period. Because of as we can see, Hammurabi is not a democratic kingdom, all the decisions were decided by the king who had more powerful, aimed to act any thing to keep his power stable and for the high ranking officers under his control, so dependently for the poors. (Slave was legal even both intention or/and unintentional killing to slavery was no matter just paying money) It is different from Magna Carta, despite some charters are not qualified, but most charters aim to promote peace and democracy. For instance, in Church, monarch would appoint a candidate with the approval of the monks of Canterbury that controlled by Pope. This display “Two ideas are better than one” that will lead the country qualify and happiness.

Compearative Hammurabi and Magna Carta on contract law

Comparative the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta on Contract Law

On the article 60 of Hammurabi says that “if any one give over the field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden, if he works on it and care of it for four years, in the fifth year the owner and gardener should divided it, the owner taking his part in charge ” and in Article 5 of Magna Carta law list that “ For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, she shall maintain the house , park, fish preserves, ponds, mill, and every thing else pertaining to it , from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, .he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenue from the land can reasonably bear”

through the article 60 of Hammurabi above we see that this article encourages the worker who works for free or the low level position try not to work for many year because if they work so many years still get the same position and lower pay, they won’t satisfy for daily living standard, the government of Hammurabi may think that all citizens shall have similar level of living standard and tries to prevent poor people from putting pressure from the rich.. If the government tries not to do so the responsibly of the whole society is government itself. So government is so clever about how to propose the law.
Another article of contract law the situation the same thing but the law is different, especially the Article 5 of Magna Carta law. When the guardian has guardianship for the life and when the heir becomes the old age, he shall restore the whole land to him. In this point we see that the government also tries to prevent the poor from the rich by let the owner think that they should not keep the guardian for long time for taking care of such the land, but in contrary the government encourages the poor keeping the lower job and lower pay for so long by not allow him/her to invest in other business or job. On the other hand, the guardian will not try to find out another job because she/he want that kind of land already.

Code Comparison of Contract Law

Comparisons of Contract Law between the
Code of Hummurabi and Magna Carta


According to the article 9 of Hummurabi code stated about losing an article. This law states so clearly about the process how to prove to the court if the property belongs to them or not. If we look at the law processing, it seems so strict and perfect. They will not just judge people base on a principle thing. The court will try to find out the root of story and start to consider about the story and they will punish the thief. If he/she is a thief and they can prove it, he/she will be put to death. They set the strict rule like this in order to control their country in a proper way. They just don’t want people to think about stealing, robbing or other staff that are not moral, that the society hate. To human rights law this law seem so harsh to their people. Just to prove that he’s a thief then put them to death. They didn’t treat their own people in a polite way. Yes, he steals things but it doesn’t mean that he will always be a thief forever. They should give him another chance. They can punish him and then let see if he changes or he’s still the same. But even he doesn’t change, stealing shouldn’t be put in death. Because it’s not a very harsh criminal act that no body can forgive him.

For Magna Carta law in art. 28 and 32 stated about the royal officer who want to take one’s property without permission. If he does that, he must return the property back to the owner within a year and a day. But this didn’t say anything about the punishment, even though there will a punishment for them. Via this law we can see that, people who enacted this law wants people are the same. They treat everyone in the same way. This is mean that even he’s a royal officer, he work in the royal palace, but this doesn’t mean that he’s powerful, so he can take anybody property whenever they can. And he has a reasonable period that he has to return the property to it owner. If we compare this to human rights, this law is enacted along the human rights. Because it seems they have their own rule to control people but not very cruel. They didn’t separate class to people and treat them with a different way.

In my opinion, Magna Carta law is getting along with human right and Magna Carta found a better way to treat their people by punish they according to the level of he/she criminal act. But Hummurabi is very harsh, they treating their people too strict and they didn’t care about their people life. They will put anyone to death if he/she did something wrong but they didn’t bother to give he/she another chance.

Any way, I think that no one wanted to be bad unless they were poor so they should steal. And the thief will be in a good way if they were punished a year and a day such a case in art.28 and 32 of Magna Carta Law.

Code Comparison

TES Loudeth

Comparisons between the
Code of Hummurabi and Magna Carta


According to the article 9 of Hummurabi code stated about losing an article. This law states so clearly about the process how to prove to the court if the property belongs to them or not. If we look at the law processing, it seems so strict and perfect. They will not just judge people base on a principle thing. The court will try to find out the root of story and start to consider about the story and they will punish the thief. If he/she is a thief and they can prove it, he/she will be put to death. They set the strict rule like this in order to control their country in a proper way. They just don’t want people to think about stealing, robbing or other staff that are not moral, that the society hate. To human rights law this law seem so harsh to their people. Just to prove that he’s a thief then put them to death. They didn’t treat their own people in a polite way. Yes, he steals things but it doesn’t mean that he will always be a thief forever. They should give him another chance. They can punish him and then let see if he changes or he’s still the same. But even he doesn’t change, stealing shouldn’t be put in death. Because it’s not a very harsh criminal act that no body can forgive him.

For Magna Carta law in art. 28 and 32 stated about the royal officer who want to take one’s property without permission. If he does that, he must return the property back to the owner within a year and a day. But this didn’t say anything about the punishment, even though there will a punishment for them. Via this law we can see that, people who enacted this law wants people are the same. They treat everyone in the same way. This is mean that even he’s a royal officer, he work in the royal palace, but this doesn’t mean that he’s powerful, so he can take anybody property whenever they can. And he has a reasonable period that he has to return the property to it owner. If we compare this to human rights, this law is enacted along the human rights. Because it seems they have their own rule to control people but not very cruel. They didn’t separate class to people and treat them with a different way.

In my opinion, Magna Carta law is getting along with human right and Magna Carta found a better way to treat their people by punish they according to the level of he/she criminal act. But Hummurabi is very harsh, they treating their people too strict and they didn’t care about their people life. They will put anyone to death if he/she did something wrong but they didn’t bother to give he/she another chance.

Any way, I think that no one wanted to be bad unless they were poor so they should steal. And the thief will be in a good way if they were punished a year and a day such a case in art.28 and 32 of Magna Carta Law.

Essay: Comparative between Agricultural law in Hammurabi Code and Magna Carta

Agricultural law is the law that urges the farmers to responsible for their obligations and rights of individual. This law also guarantees the individuals’ properties and liberties in which they are equal before the law, and no one can not take their rights of. However, what about the agricultural law in Hammurabi and Magna Carta? Do these shape the individual rights, properties and liberties? And what made them different?

Firstly, the agricultural law in Hammurabi is the written laws which stated clearly in each article. These laws focus on the rights and obligations of individual. If any man does not respect the law and pay less obligations or duties to what he had done in the fields or do not so understand about the field, cultivation, he would have lost his properties or possessions in that year and owe debts. For example, in one article the law said “If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not to keep it; if then the dam break and all the be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.” It means that if anyone did not responsible to keep the dam in good condition; and if, it is broken to destroy his neighbor’s crops, then his crop shall be sold and pay to his neighbor. This article is emphasize on his duties keep the dam in proper condition, and it also stress about the rights of his neighbors that could order him to compensate for their loses. Another example is that if any one owes a debt for a loan, and a storm postrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.” It says that there is no payment for the debt of a loan for the year he rent because the grain was floated away and his debt was cleaned by the water or storm. Another word is not the tiller’s fault, but it caused by nature. Furthermore, it is a fair and just law creates to preserve social order because the lawmakers thought that the tiller is already poor if he is still charged, he become poorer. Thus, refer to the above statement and example, we would like to say that even though this law did force to capital punishment, but it still made farmer respect because it is a kind of business between the land owner and the tiller. In business it must consist of lost and benefit. So, if any farmer does not respect and not so focus on his duties, he may get nothing and sometime he might loss his possession. In contrast, there is a fair judgment that the law is written like in the case of natural disaster, storm, rain and drought. These kinds of disasters, any debt that would be paid in the contract year would have released through the water or storm.

Secondly, the agricultural law in Magna Carta is created by barons to ensure the rights and liberties of individual and protect the king not use his absolute power to seize any property of a freeman and to maintain that every judgment must be conducted by law and every person must equal. Moreover, the must be bound by law, in which no royal officer use his power to abuse the rights of freeman. For instance, in one article stated that “to any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father king Henry or our brothers king Richard, and it remains in our hands or is hell by other under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless the lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once renter justice in full.” It means that this law warranties the right of the people. If any one‘s lands, castles, liberties or rights have been taken without the law confirm then the law must claim for them and return them to the owners’ properties. Hence, this law creates to protect the lands, properties and rights of people and to limit the power of king for any kind of seizing. But in the fact that this law not created to prevent all individuals’ benefits; in contrast, the law created to give benefits to the barons because only barons that hold the big land and properties.

In conclusion, we can draw a comparison that the law in Hammurabi is more proper than the law which was created by barons, Magna Carta because the Hammurabi Code of agriculture is applied to every individual in the whole society, but Magna Carta created to give benefit to a group of people in society, barons. However, these two kinds of laws maintain the ideas of democracy and human rights in that period. For instance, the law in Hammurabi does not force people to respect it, but they must obligate to respect the law, and this law tells people to use their rights in the right way by not harm to the others’ rights. The law in Magna Carta; for example, limit the king’s power and create law to preserve the social justice. Even though, the law benefit to the barons, but it apply to all people, and that people have rights to claim for what they lost without lawful judgment. But we have to remember one of the most remarkable point is that the Hammurabi Code cannot be amended because it written on the rock, and Magna Carta have more chance to amend some clauses deem necesary.

Assigned Group: Moen Savoeun
Vong Dara

The comparative paper between contract law in the Code of Hammurabi and Magna Carta

After i studied the two code of laws, i get more interested in them even the two have some different points. It was about 4000 years ago since the Code of Hammurabi had been created by the king Hammurabi to establish right and obligation for his people at that time. Unlike, Magna Carta that was created because of disagreements between Pope Innocent III, King John and his English barons to exercise the right of the king. Even so there are a lot of differences between the two laws. But i would like to take only some differences to compare.

In the Code of Hammurabi, the laws were carved on the stone for the king thought that it would be easier to his people coming and seeing what was writen on the stone. More than that he thought the stone was always there, and it would be the proof to prevent people who attempt to commit something wrong such as criminal. There will no excuses for an offender to say that he or she did not do something wrong as the stone contained everything on it. In contrast, the law of Magna Carta was created for the reason that Pope Innocent III disagreed with King John and also it people within the country. The king had to renounce certain right, respect certain legal procedures and people must accept the will of the king as it was bound by law. By the way it was the first document to limit the power of the king by law. So i can say that this is the difference of the two laws based on different purpose.

when i looked into the articles of the two laws i also found out something. For example, in the article 117 says that " If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them. or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free." In this case the government doesn't care what will happen between the one who gave away his of her family and the creditor. The thing is that the government only cares to the aspect that slaves at that time didn't pay tax at all, but free men did. It was very different from the Magna Carta in the article 9 that says" Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rend in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has moveable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not dis trained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge..................................., unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them." In this case the law of Magna Carta gives priority to the debtors who can pay back the debt in any way as they can do, but they don't have to sell their family members like the Code of Hammurabi. It can also say that the human right in Magna Carta is better than the time of Hammurabi.

In short, even there are diffences between the two, there are also some good points that they have in common. For example, the purpose of the two play an important roles in protecting their society and people.

Writen by: Keo Cheysothearith