3.5. Explaining Social Differences: A Social Contract

The Buddhists also developed an alternative understanding of social inequalities, and of the institutions required to regulate social conflict. In a myth found in a text known as the Sutta Pitaka they suggested that originally human beings did not have fully evolved bodily forms, nor was the world of plants fully developed. All beings lived in an idyllic state of peace, taking from nature only what they needed for each meal.

The Buddhists believed in an ideal world where humans lived peacefully without greed or conflict. They argued that this harmonious state deteriorated as people became greedy and deceitful, leading to social inequalities. This perspective emphasizes that societal structures, like kingship, originated from human choices rather than divine ordination. It indicates that since humans created these structures, they also have the power to change them when necessary.

Consider a community garden where everyone contributes and shares the harvest equally. As long as everyone is fair and honest, the garden thrives. However, when one person begins to hoard resources or overplant for themselves, it causes conflict. This mirrors the Buddhist view: society flourishes when people work together, but greed disrupts harmony.

However, there was a gradual deterioration of this state as human beings became increasingly greedy, vindictive and deceitful. This led them to wonder: “What if we were to select a certain being who should be wrathful when indignation is right, who should censure that which should rightly be censured and should banish him who deserves to be banished? We will give him in return a proportion of the rice … chosen by the whole people, he will be known as mahasammata, the great elect.”

The text describes a transition from a state of harmony to one needing governance due to human failings. The people agreed to elect a king (mahasammata) to maintain order, reflecting a social contract. This reinforces the idea that kingship was a collective choice rather than a natural or divine right.

Imagine a group of friends who regularly meet for activities. Initially, they share decision-making equally. If one friend starts making decisions unilaterally or becomes domineering, others might vote to appoint a leader to ensure fairness and maintain friendship—much like how communities might have chosen a king to restore order.

This suggests that the institution of kingship was based on human choice, with taxes as a form of payment for services rendered by the king. At the same time, it reveals recognition of human agency in creating and institutionalising economic and social relations. There are other implications as well. For instance, if human beings were responsible for the creation of the system, they could also change it in future.

By establishing that kingship arose from human choice, it emphasizes the role of individuals in shaping societal structures. The notion of taxes paid to the king illustrates the reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Since humans created these systems, they hold the potential to alter or abolish them if they no longer serve the community's needs.

Think of a school board that implements certain rules to create a healthy educational environment. If students and teachers feel these rules are unfair or outdated, they can petition the board for change. Similarly, the Buddhist view posits that society can evolve if its members act collectively to address injustices.

--