like to connect commonality which Dr. Iokibe had mentioned, with globalization to further consider the issue. The word "virtue" has been used. Actually, it was through the international society that Japan acquired the ethics of virtue. It is not an ethics originally from Japan. Almost no kind of ethics can be created in a closed society. We have to create a new ethics which suits the new globalization. We can say that this is why we are all here today. This is my first point.
And now, I would like to mention another. In Session 3, I was so overwhelmed with the discussion on economy that I didn't have a chance to say it, but I had great concern in Dr. Yamano's statement. This is about long-term production which Professor Hara had mentioned. This long-term production includes technology which includes the future technology which Dr. Yamano has introduced, the technology of the past and traditional technology. There is also another one, agricultural technology. As a matter of fact at a time, agriculture and technically-produced goods were not considered separate things. Therefore, we must include such agriculture when thinking of a long-term production. We here face a problem of how to recapture such matters. It is no good saying that agriculture is a part of the Japanese culture. As Dr. Yamano had said, we must think how technology can at the present time or in the future be globalized and expanded, in other words, become a global issue. He explained that it is not just because such technology is related to the global environment field, but because it will also become the supporting industry for developing countries. From my point of view, it does seem a little unbecoming to think that the future technology must be taken as a global technology, that is, a technology that must be considered in globalization. It is the same for NGOs and NPOs. The globalization of the civil society which was expressed by Professor Lee, is also included. And another is the globalization of study and culture.
In this panel discussion, we have mainly discussed the globalization of the market which is presently confronting a crisis. But I think we can say that we are now under the pressure to consider the globalization of technology, the civil society and culture. The same can be said for regulation.
Dr. Shiraishi gave the Japanese Mafia, the Yakuza as an example, which I take as an example of self-regulation. So, there is regulation from not only outside but also inside, which is self-regulation. This self-regulation has an intimate relationship with culture. Including self-regulation in the regulation issue, it is necessary for us to rebuild it so that it can adapt to he globalized environment.
｡?AOKI
The subject Buddhism has come up. Although Buddhism is originally the teaching of the Buddha, it took root in each Asian region and developed in different ways. There are various kinds of Buddhism, such as Tibetan Buddhism, Nepal Buddhism, Thai Buddhism, Burma Buddhism, the Ceylon Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Japanese Buddhism, and Korean Buddhism. They have all developed individually with relation to the spirit, God, faith or manners and customs of each region, Japanese Buddhism is criticized as being only used at funerals, but neither the supporter nor the parishioner system can be seen in any other Buddhism of Southeast Asia.
They each have good points. I have practiced the asceticism of the Thai Buddhism and take it as an extremely wonderful religion. Although all sorts of wonderful values of Asia are scattered around here and there, the Asian people are not very good in discovering the values of each other's countries. On the other hand, the Europeans are more talented in discovering such values and have repeatedly made films on them. I think we should take advantage of every epistemic discussion as this and develop it into a place where we can communicate and discover the Asian values which lie in our countries.
Another point that I would like to refer to, is the problem of commonality which was discussed a short while ago. I also find this very important. Only when mentioning the word commonality, there is a possibility that it will fall to a level where it just means to make a rule book saying don't do this and that or don't smoke cigarettes and so on. For example, the racial harmonic policy of the Osman empire went very well because a sense of loyalty and justice of Islam existed there. The equality of all the people and their rights were guaranteed under this justice. As for the Anglo-Saxon model, though I do agree with Professor Iokibe pointing out that it is full of inconsistencies, in order to conquer the world, such things like the love of Christianity lies in the root.
There is also the concept of Buddhism mercy, Metta or Karma, and the sense of respect and virtue of Confucianism. In other words, there is another tremendous value which transcends the rule book. Commonality has shown its ability throughout history, but is it possible for a citizen or an individual or maybe a national state or region to create such commonality with lack of transcendence that will sill satisfy everybody? Wouldn't it become just like a traffic regulation ? This is
