Anda di halaman 1dari 16

The Sangha and the State: The Ideal Relationship according to Buddhist Monks in Classical India Ancient Buddhist

Thought: Final Exam Spring 2010 Scott Abel The two most preeminent institutions of the Classical Era in India ideally coordinated in the hopes of creating a harmonious society so that people may seek enlightenment. The institutions described are the Classical Indian state and the Buddhist monastery as described by the Buddhist monasterys ideal church-state relationship. In early Theravada Buddhist doctrine, the king or the state primarily dealt with secular doctrine, whereas the monastic orders preserved the Dhamma and promoted deeds of merit. The structure of this essay will include an examination the ideal characteristics of a Buddhist king, observations about the ideal church-state relationship, and interpretations of anecdotes involving Buddhist kings and ecclesiastical figures. This essay will argue that during the Classical Era of India, Buddhist ideals required the monastic order, or the Sangha, to maintain a balanced relationship with the state in which both institutions remained separate but mutually dependent for support. This essay will also argue that each institution possessed specific obligations that include the preservation of the Buddhist society and keep to Theravada Buddhism pure. Although the Buddhist doctrine that is about the relationship between the Sangha and the state is ancient, its relevance remains important in the modern era. In modern Burma, Buddhism and the Sangha continue to play an important role in state affairs. Many of the ideals promoted in the post-colonial era recall similar concepts and ideas established in early Buddhism. Prime Minister U Nu, a pious Burmese

Buddhist, expanded the importance of Buddhism through various measures during his tenure as the prime minister of an independent Burma after the final of British colonial government departed. He promoted Buddhism through various means by convening the sixth Buddhist Council in 1954, supporting institutions such as the Ecclesiastical Courts, and Pali-language universities to translate Buddhist texts. U Nu brought the Sangha closer to state functions by paying for the restoration and building of Buddhist structures and establishing Buddhism as the state religion in 1962 with much support from the Sangha.1 During military junta rule over Myanmar, Buddhist monks marched against the rise in fuel prices in August 2007 in the Sapphron Revolution. Three hundred monks defied the state by marching in the town Sittwe, Myanmar.2 The protesters, led by monks and democratic supporters, throughout the country in total amounted to the tens of thousands. The junta, however, quashed the protests, leaving thirteen dead and countless people arrested.3 The protest symbolizes the monks ability to object to the legitimacy of the government, but without being overly involved in politics. The ideal relationship established in the ancient Buddhist texts remains relevant in modern times as monks can be influential to fellow Buddhists. The ideal Buddhist king and state needed to possess certain characteristics that embodied the virtues of the Buddhist Dhamma, in other words, the ideal king followed a strict code of conduct established by Buddhist thought. The ideal king concept arose from a series of legendary kings who became known as the Cakkavatti king, which

Melford Spiro, Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes, (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 379, 385. 2 The Associated Press, Captive Nation: A token release from a growing gulag, The Economist, Feb. 18, 2010, print edition. 3 Central Intelligence Agency, Burma, CIA World Factbook, April 7, 2010, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html (accessed April 2010).

translates into English as the wheel-turning king.4 According to the Buddha, an ideal king must have certain characteristics that allow him to rule his kingdom in a manner that preserves order and promotes prosperity. The Buddha proclaimed that people in the beginning chose the first kings to rule over and protect them in return for a proportion of the peoples rice. The king instituted justice to maintain a fair and civil society, while remaining competent, congenial, and even good-looking. Ideally, the king possessed the thirty-two characteristics that are also signs of a buddha, as the king was essentially a buddhas secular counterpart.5 According to the Buddha, the ideal king should possess a personality of kindness, responsibility, and a strong sense of justice. Other sources explained what the virtues of the ideal king were and what the punishments were for a king who neglected his duties, which sometimes embodied the more Vedic concepts in Buddhist ideology. The anecdotes from the Jataka gave the king ten specific obligations demanded from the Bodhisattva. The obligations included generosity to those in need, remaining morally upright, and to be unselfish in his capacity as king. In his work, the king had to maintain his integrity, truthfulness, and remain gentle with the population by implanting policy without causing injury. He must also maintain self-control, calmness, patience, and virtue.6 The Jataka required that the ideal king, in summation, follow the Buddhist concept of Dhamma. Should a king stray from it, Brahmin priests and Buddhist monks could help the king find the proper path.7 As there was no single Buddhist ideal for the king, each region with a Buddhist influence developed their own ideologies.

4 5

Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, (New York: Cambridge UP, 2000), 114. Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 114. 6 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 115. 7 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 115.

Another source, the Mahavastu, depicted the ideals of kingship with dire consequences should a king become unrighteous. The Mahavastu focused more on the role of the king as the arbiter of justice and an effective ruler. A king should remain calm and impartial in his judgment while refusing sensual indulgences. An ideal king had just social policies that allow immigrants into his lands and supports the impoverished, while protecting the wealthy. In his domestic affairs, the king should act responsibly in regard to his treasury and granary and while in his foreign affairs remain friendly to other kings. The kingdom and the universe will fall into chaos if the king should stray from his obligations, resulting in the suffering of his people.8 In the case of the Mahavastu, the kings obligations combined the governmental and the spiritual, as the Vedic tradition mentioned in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Vedic Dharma placed the king as Dharmas regent and enforcer, which adds a divine aspect to his rule.9 The intertwining of the divine and the regal speaks of Vedic influences in this particular case, as the king must rule properly or the world may suffer because of his ineptitude. The other aspects of ancient Theravada Buddhist traditions perspective of an ideal king focused less on divinity and more upon the practice of the rule of morality or Dhamma. Symbolism in the ordination ceremony for monks ritualistically places all people equally in front of Dhamma, which united the political and religious aspects of society. Kamma treats all people equally and punishes unwholesome deeds and rewards meritorious deeds to perpetrators regardless of their status in society. Kamma vindicates all inequality in the physical realm through previous actions as punishments or rewards.10
8 9

Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 115. Ainslie Embree, Sources of Indian Tradition: From the Beginning to 1800, (New York: Columbia U. P., 1988), 210. 10 Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 20-21.

All people, including the king, must eventually answer to Kamma, which justifies and legitimizes the Buddhist social structure. Should a king violate the rules of the Dhamma, he could expect a punishment in time, therefore, he should rule within the Dhamma. The ideal Classical Buddhist society rested on stability provided by the institutions of church and state through mutual support and a balance of influences. In a triangle of balances between the state with the king as its head, the Sangha, and the general public, each entity had specific obligations to the other. Dana, an important ideal of Buddhism, requires Buddhists to give material goods such as clothes or food.11 Two texts, the Mahavamsa and Culavansa explain how a king granted titles of rank and gold to monks who made the Sangha prosper. The ideal state required the king to offer donations to the Sangha including material goods, favors, gold, and people right up to the king. Even the state itself could be donated to the Sangha in a symbolic manner. The king or his ministers would purchase people and the state back from the Sangha. The state, often represented as an umbrella, was the only donation that could be given back from the Sangha without being purchase.12 The king also had watch over the monasteries of the Sangha to ensure they did not collapse by bringing in more monks and giving them more land whenever necessary.13 The Dhamma obliged Buddhist kings to maintain the balance of society by donating wealth to the Buddhist monastery and preserving the Sangha.

11

John Strong, Rich Man, Poor Man, Bhikku, King: Quinquennial Festival and the Nature of Dana, Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 108. 12 Steven Kemper, Wealth and Reformation in Sinhalese Buddhist Monasticism, Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 155-156. 13 Kemper, Wealth and Reformation, 158.

In return for the kings gifts to the Sangha, he received certain rights that gave him extensive power over the monasteries. The king had the power to reform the monasteries to his liking when less than five monks lived in the Order. Although this may entail giving the monks more land, he had the right to unify the monks and command them to obey Buddhist principles. When necessary, the king expelled laymen from the monastery. The most important thing the king received in return for all his obligations to the Sangha was its support for his regime. By accepting the kings donations, the Sangha legitimized the king as the ruler of the territory. If monastery disfavored the king excessively, he simply could forego his obligation to recognize the monasterys boundaries and refuse to protect it. To refuse the kings gifts by inverting their bowls was the most harm the monks and nuns could legally inflict.14 By inverting their bowls, the monks and nuns questioned the legitimacy of the kings reign, which might lead the Buddhist population to do the same. The king would ideally seek the advice of the monks if they refuse his donations or even if the Sangha itself needed purification.15 The idealized relationship between Sangha and the king gave the state specific duties in return for the prize of legitimacy. The relationship also required a balance of power between the Sangha and the state so that the Sangha does not neglect its duties and the king may know when he has gone astray in his rule. A monarchy was not the only government system that the Buddha considered to preserve his ideals. Ultimately, the ideal society was free of poverty and peaceful, along with a Buddhist as its leader, who did not have to be a monarch. The Buddha approved of the republic government system during his lifetime and even made suggestions to
14 15

Kemper, Wealth and Reformation, 158, 159. Robin Lovin, Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology: Buddhist and Christian Strategies for Change, Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 197-198.

preserve the Vajjian Republic. He mentioned that people should assemble often peacefully, maintain proceedings according to tradition, and allow the elders the right to speak at the assemblies, along with actually respecting their opinions. Even when the Buddha could see the republic disappearing to the power of the kingdoms, he spoke of preserving the ideals of mutual respect and assembly-based decision making. In regard to religion, the Buddha encouraged the reverence of the Vijjian shrines, while maintaining their ancestors support for the shrines.16 Although the Buddha made no specific mention of the relationship between the Sangha and the republic, his principles suggest that individuals donate their wealth to religious figures and institutions so that they may be preserved. An ideal Buddhist society could not exist if chaos ruled and therefore people needed a government to ensure order. In order to achieve nibbana or enlightenment, a person needed to depend on the rest of society. To advance this cause, each person needed to help maintain a wholesome community because a secure and tranquil society permitted monks and laymen alike to focus on bringing nibbana. In times of anarchy and chaos, people became distracted from their goal of achieving nibbana. Monks may only bring about security through tolerance and without the use of violence.17 Political leaders and government administrators may assist people in need, but this did not necessarily reflect the ideal situation. The government must, however, enforce the laws of Dhamma to prevent people from going astray.18 Governments must ensure order in the state so that the Sangha and the rest of society may continue to pursue enlightenment.
16 17

Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 113-114. Phra Rajavaramuni, Foundation of Buddhist Ethics, Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 36-37. 18 Rajavaramuni, Foundation of Buddhist Ethics, 38.

The Sangha also has obligations toward the state and its people, which bring monks and nuns into interdependence with the rest of society. The Sangha was not to dominate the king or his policies, rather, in the best of circumstances a monk may speak for the king or the king may allow for a monk sit upon the throne for an ordination ceremony. In general, the Sangha remained detached from the state by refusing to intervene in daily politics.19 Rather, monks and nuns preserved the Dhamma and spread it to those who have not accepted it.20 While the secular world maintained its routines, the monks and nuns reminded society of the ultimate goal of peoples existence. The Sangha gave the Dhamma to society as a gift because it led to the ultimate salvation and solved the problems of physical existence.21 Essentially, the ecclesiastical Sangha had the duty to explain Dhamma and ideally did not involve itself in politics, which it left to the king. In return for salvation for the masses and legitimacy for the king, the Sangha required their material support. Monks and nuns have other obligations to the Sangha and the state that are more difficult to define, but still important. Monks and nuns must not become attached to their wealth or misuse it because their misconduct damages the Sangha and even the state. Disruptions caused by misconduct within the Sangha may result in social disorder.22 If monks and nuns ceased to be pious, failed to exemplify Dhamma, and corrupted the Sangha, society may follow their example. Without the purity of the Sangha and the maintenance of the Dhamma, the Sangha might fracture and nibbana may be lost to all. Therefore, the Sangha needed the king to step in when necessary to keep the Sangha pure to preserve the Dhamma and legitimize the kings occasional role in ecclesiastical affairs.
19 20

Lovin, Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology, 197. Lovin, Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology, 198. 21 Lovin, Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology, 206. 22 Sizemore and Swearer, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation, 17.

Even in times of unity, the Sangha needed the state to maintain its possessions and position in society. In one instance, probably replicated other times, a wealthy layman wanted to bequeath his estate to the Sangha through a written will just before he died, which the state permitted. As part of an informal agreement during instances such as these, the monastic community admitted the childless man on the verge of death as part of their order to care for him until he died. The donor or shaven-head householder could remain at his estate until his death, upon which the Sangha anticipated it would receive his estate. The state officially sanctioned the transactions where the Sangha acquired estates bequeathed by dying wealthy men.23 The state allowed monasteries to obtain estates from heirless men, which the state could have determined belonged to it. Rather, the state allowed the Sangha to gain much from the legacy of the wealthy, perhaps out of respect for the wishes of the deceased and the Sangha. The interaction regarding inheritance between the Sangha and the state exemplified the significance of the contradictions between Buddhist and Vedic laws and the established of legal precedent as established by the king. One important precedent regarding inheritance between the laws of the Buddha and the Vedic laws involved a dispute between the kings ministers and the Buddha. With the death of a monk owning a large estate named Upananda, government ministers sought to seize his estate while monks closed his chamber with the royal seal. The Buddha, cognizant of the situation, dispatched Ananda to speak with the king regarding the inheritance of Upananda. Ananda questioned the king on the existence of a relationship with Upananda, which the king did not. After his questioning, Ananda convinced the king to agree that the

23

Gregory Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, (Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute of Buddhist Traditions, 2004), 11.

deceased monks possessions belonged to the monastic community. Furthermore, the two established the legal separation of the kings secular affairs and the affairs of the monastic community.24 The Upananda incident showed the influence of the Buddha and his disciples in allowing for the Sangha to establish its legal independence from the government. The system of inheritance did not always work exactly to the interests of the state and ultimately the king decided what would be confiscated when a man without heirs died. In one case, a householder wanted to join a monastery and started the training required for ordination. When the householder fell ill, his training stopped as monastic rules prohibited the ordination of the ill. The would-be monk returned home to recover with attendants from the monastery, but his condition worsened and he willed his estate to the monastery. When he died, the state became interested in collecting his estate as he was a sonless man, which according to Indian law, permitted the king to seize the estate. The king declared, however, that the Buddhas law permitted the Sangha to take the estate as secular laws did not apply in this situation.25 The instances involving the deaths of the householders showed the clear legal distinction between the state and the Sangha as separate institutions. The latter account also suggests that ecclesiastical law held precedence over secular law according to the early Buddhist ideal, but ultimately the king mediated between the interests of the Sangha and the state. The monks and nuns legal claim to the properties of householders had limits because they lacked any legitimate claim to properties in certain circumstances. A vihara, or house,26 may be donated to a monastery by a secular layperson without
24 25

Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 311-312. Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 103-104. 26 Stanley Wolpert, Krishnamurti, Jiddu, Stanley Wolpert ed., Encylcopedia of India, Vol. 3., (Detroit: Charles Scribners Son, 2006), 42-43.

10

formally handing the ownership of the property to the monastery. In one instance, the king confiscated a vihara owned by a layperson and inhabited by monks. Despite the pleas of the owners to do something about the seizure, the monks remained silent to the owner and requested instructions from the monastery in regard to procedures for abandoning the site.27 This instance clearly shows the king had the to right to seize the property even when the owners remained alive and with monks residing on the property. Even if the monks had legal recourse, perhaps a direct appeal to the king, they remained silent. Ultimately, according to the Buddhist ideals, the king interpretted and enforced inheritance and property laws, but the ideal king would remain faithful to the Buddhist tradition. The king had proper recourse if monks acted to his disliking by working with the Sangha to establish new rules. In one anecdote, a monk meditated in the forest while securing his legs closed to avoid any personal indiscretions with a goddess in the forest. Having discovered the monk with his legs closed, the goddess angered by his gesture, threw him into the air. Unfortunately, the monk, with legs still secured, landed on top of the king sleeping on his palace roof. The king voiced his displeasure to the Buddha about the monks nighttime behavior, resulting in the prohibition against forest meditation.28 Although the story may seem fanciful, it reveals a significant part of the relationship between the Sangha and the state. The monk, although if his story is to believed did nothing wrong, offended the king in the middle of the night at his own palace, which required a measure to ensure such an incident never happened again. The king, rather than directly reforming the monks rules, requested the Buddha address the situation.

27 28

Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 181. Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 26.

11

Such actions show a clear separation between the kings authority and the Sangha, while showing that neither the state nor the Sangha possessed immediate authority over the other. A king may decide to remove the influence of the Buddha from his kingdom, but in doing so he risks isolating himself from his people. According to the Pancavarsika, the mischievous Devadatta convinced King Ajatasattu of Rajagaha to forbid his people from listening to the Buddha or his monks and Devadatta also convinced the king not to allow his people to give any alms or donations to the Buddha and his monks. The kings people become distressed at losing their opportunity to learn about the Dhamma and complained that the Buddha, along with his disciples, would have to leave to request alms elsewhere. Hearing such pleas, the god Indra left heaven to console the kings subjects and to support the Buddha, along with the Sangha. Although the god vowed to feed them for five years, the Buddha reduced it to five days for ritual reasons. Indras divine powers turn the town of Venuvana, where the Buddha stayed, into a palace where spiritual entities served the Sangha. The king enticed by the divinity and good treatment of the monks, permits himself and his people to enter the divine palace, where gods and men listen to the Buddha and his Dhamma.29 This incident shows the relationship between the populace, the king, and the Sangha with a few other characters involved. Even though the king unjustly cuts off his kingdoms relationship with the Sangha, the Buddha made no attempt to force the king to accept the Dhamma and did not attempt to supersede the kings authority. Even when faced with the prospect starvation, the Sangha remains in Venuvana. The upset populace remained peaceful and obedient to the kings

29

Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 113.

12

wishes. The situation resolved itself when divine forces sway the king from Devadatta to listen to the Dhamma. The previously mentioned incident in Venuvana is not the only instance of Vedic influences as another king erred in his judgment in regard to the Dhamma. According to some Buddhist traditions, the violation of Dhamma created dire circumstances for the kingdom. In one such case, King Kanakavarna, ruler of a vast kingdom called Jambudvipa, meditated on the subject of taxation, duties, and customs. Concluding from his meditation that they were unwarranted, the king decreed an end to all forms of taxation and government fees. The results were disastrous as the cosmos misaligned, causing a twelve-year drought in Jambudvipa. The king, concerned over the possibility of famine, confiscated his kingdoms food and distributed it evenly for eleven years. By the twelfth year, the king only possessed one unit of food left and his kingdom remained on the brink of starvation. Fortunately, a bodhisattva mystically flew to the palace and received an audience with the king. The bodhisattva requested the last unit of food and the king complied. As a result, the sky rained, releasing the kingdom from poverty and the specter of starvation.30 The story of King Kanakavarna informs the reader about the roles of the state and the Sangha. King Kanakavarna administered his kingdom improperly, nearly resulting in the death of his people. The king strayed from his obligations to his kingdom by meditating, a task that should be left to others. The kings actions of no taxes and complete redistribution of wealth caused discord as it distorted merit and the market economy. The kings duty is to permit others to achieve enlightenment.31 The kings distribution of
30

www.smith.edu/religion/documents/rotman-marketingmorality.pdf, 31 Rotman, Marketing Morality, 7-9.

Andy Rotman, Marketing Morality: The Economy of Faith in Early Buddhism, 200, 4-5.

13

wealth failed to accumulate merit as it is the goal of the Sangha to help society gain merit. Merit only accrued once the king gave food to the bodhisattva, which saved the kingdom. The king should offer dana to spiritual people such as a bodhisattva or a monastery. The story clearly distinguished the roles of the political figures and the spiritual figures, who both contribute to a Buddhist society. The state collects taxes and administers order, whereas the Sangha deals with spiritual matters such as the collection of merit. One historical king, Asoka, also appears in Buddhist texts as a legendary king who donated generously to the Sangha. The legendary Asoka became an ideal Buddhist king through his acts of generosity to the Sangha. In one particular incident, Asokas son obligated Asoka to outbid his donation to the Sangha. Asoka tripled his sons donation by giving the Sangha his family, ministers, himself, and kingship, leaving only the royal treasury. Using finance from the state treasury, the ministers bought back the kings donations for 400,000 pieces of gold, which allowed the king to recover the throne and renewed him spiritually. The incident reinforced the distinction between the state and the Sangha.32 Asokas generosity and willingness to hand the kingdom over to the Sangha also showed an ideal balance between the Sangha and the state. The Sangha cannot intervene in secular affairs and therefore cannot rule, whereas the legendary Asoka cannot directly move the people toward enlightenment. The ideal relationship between the Sangha and the state remained one of balance, as neither could directly nor permanently dominate the other. Robin Lovin claims that the ideal Buddhist king possessed authority over both the Sangha and the secular realm.33

32 33

Strong, Rich Man, Poor Man, Bhikku, King, 110-112. Lovin, Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology, 205.

14

His analysis of the Buddhist ideal, however, requires that the Sangha always submit to the will of the king and integrates with the state at some level. Neither is the case, as the Buddhist monks ideally submit to the king when their order is clearly in need of reform. Furthermore, many anecdotes clearly separate secular law and the law of the Sangha, leaving king to deal with the material world and usually not in the affairs of the Sangha. An ideal or Cakkavatti king could not violate precedent established by Buddhist tradition, therefore limiting his rule to the secular realm. The ancient Buddhist texts simply do not support the placement of the king as leader of the Sangha and the secular kingdom in classical India. The ideal relationship between the Sangha and the state in Classical India required that the two entities remain separate, along with instituting a system of balances to ensure that neither could meddle in the affairs of the other. Ultimately, the ideal king ruled by the Dhamma, whereas the Buddhist monks and nuns instructed and preserved the Dhamma for the public. Both institutions supported each other to ensure the preservation of the Dhamma and the maintenance of the status quo. The king received advice and legitimacy from the Sangha, while the Sangha received dana and purification from the king. Should the ideal relationship exist between the Cakkavatti king and the Sangha, the general population may reach nibbana much sooner.

15

Works Cited

Central Intelligence Agency. Burma. CIA World Factbook, April 7, 2010. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html (accessed April 2010). Embree, Ainslie ed. Sources of Indian Tradition: From the Beginning to 1800. New York: Columbia U. Press, 1988. Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. New York: Cambridge UP, 2000. Rotman, Andy. Marketing Morality: The Economy of Faith in Early Buddhism. 2009. www.smith.edu/religion/documents/rotman-marketingmorality.pdf. Schopen, Gregory. Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India. Ann Arbor: The Institute for the Study of Buddhist Traditions, 2004. Sizemore, Russell and Swearer, Donald ed. Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1990. Spiro, Melford. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

16

Anda mungkin juga menyukai