A Modern Knight Reflects on Buddhism and Violence

I used to be a big contributor to this site back in my teens. Haven't visited these lands in a long time. I think I was 13 or 14 when I made my first post. I'm in my 20s now, engaged and to be married in the spring. At the time of my first post, I was wavering from my devout Catholicism, and slowly adopting the tenets of Buddhism into my life. I was also a dedicated pacifist opposed to all war and violence. Around the same time, I had my first run-in with a gang and was beaten quite severely by some neighborhood teens...my first real-world application of non-violence.

Today, I'm about to commission into the United States Army into the Armor branch. I'll learn the ins and outs and tactics of being a tank commander, learn gunnery, and such. My dream is to become a cavalry scout officer and reconnaissance leader of young soldiers. Given the duration of my training, I'll almost certainly deploy to Afghanistan in 2013 or early 2014.

In my four years of preparation for becoming an officer, I've given a lot of time to contemplating the questions of morality about war, violence, and religion. Having spent several years embracing Buddhism before eventually departing and rejecting some of its tenets, I will mostly focus on Buddhist rather than Christian views on violence in my discussion. Although at one time a committed pacifist, obviously those notions have non-violence have been replaced by a proud, martial spirit eager to be a part of the profession of arms.

Universal among Buddhists I've met and spoken with, whatever their doctrinal differences, is a categorical rejection of the utility of violence and war. War is evil, violence solves nothing, and depending on your beliefs about the afterlife, engaging in such a lifestyle will result in a highly unpleasant rebirth in the next life.

To the pacifists here, how do you envision this works out in reality? To civilized, decent people, what should the response be in the face of barbarity, aggression, conquest, and genocide? When placating tyrannical governments does not work, how is a Buddhist to respond if either he himself or his loved ones faces the sword unless he use violence to defend them?

I have spent a good deal of my time the past few years studying military history. What would have been a more moral avenue to take 70 years ago? Allowing almost 20 million Chinese to be murdered in unspeakably evil ways by the Japanese Empire, or to topple the aggressive government through force and replace it with one not hellbent on genocide? Would it have been more moral to allow Nazis to exterminate the Jewish and Russian people in their mad racial designs, or to contest them bitterly and vanquish the Nazi regime? In recent times, what would be the moral approach for Buddhists to take against the Jihadist movement that seeks to subjugate Jews, Christians, and Buddhists alike in its own religious hegemony?

As for my own views, I defer to John Stuart Mill. In summary..."War is a terrible thing, but not the worst thing. What is worse is the degraded spirit that believes nothing is worth fighting for and who maintains his freedom only because of the efforts of better men than himself."

War is a terrible thing. But are there never practical benefits to its application? German and Japanese dominion of their respective continents remained and unrealized dream because of the force of arms, and therefore, genocide was eventually stopped there. Slavery, seemingly permanent in America, was forever vanquished through Union conquest of the South.

What is to be done in the face of implacable evil and violent people and regimes? Can one truly be a committed Buddhist and support violence in limited circumstances? Or conversely, can one be a committed Buddhist and NOT support violence in the defense of life and liberty?


Thoughts?

I used to be a big contributor to this site back in my teens. Haven't visited these lands in a long time. I think I was 13 or 14 when I made my first post. I'm in my 20s now, engaged and to be married in the spring. At the time of my first post, I was wavering from my devout Catholicism, and slowly adopting the tenets of Buddhism into my life. I was also a dedicated pacifist opposed to all war and violence. Around the same time, I had my first run-in with a gang and was beaten quite severely by some neighborhood teens...my first real-world application of non-violence.

Today, I'm about to commission into the United States Army into the Armor branch. I'll learn the ins and outs and tactics of being a tank commander, learn gunnery, and such. My dream is to become a cavalry scout officer and reconnaissance leader of young soldiers. Given the duration of my training, I'll almost certainly deploy to Afghanistan in 2013 or early 2014.

In my four years of preparation for becoming an officer, I've given a lot of time to contemplating the questions of morality about war, violence, and religion. Having spent several years embracing Buddhism before eventually departing and rejecting some of its tenets, I will mostly focus on Buddhist rather than Christian views on violence in my discussion. Although at one time a committed pacifist, obviously those notions have non-violence have been replaced by a proud, martial spirit eager to be a part of the profession of arms.

Universal among Buddhists I've met and spoken with, whatever their doctrinal differences, is a categorical rejection of the utility of violence and war. War is evil, violence solves nothing, and depending on your beliefs about the afterlife, engaging in such a lifestyle will result in a highly unpleasant rebirth in the next life.

To the pacifists here, how do you envision this works out in reality? To civilized, decent people, what should the response be in the face of barbarity, aggression, conquest, and genocide? When placating tyrannical governments does not work, how is a Buddhist to respond if either he himself or his loved ones faces the sword unless he use violence to defend them?

I have spent a good deal of my time the past few years studying military history. What would have been a more moral avenue to take 70 years ago? Allowing almost 20 million Chinese to be murdered in unspeakably evil ways by the Japanese Empire, or to topple the aggressive government through force and replace it with one not hellbent on genocide? Would it have been more moral to allow Nazis to exterminate the Jewish and Russian people in their mad racial designs, or to contest them bitterly and vanquish the Nazi regime? In recent times, what would be the moral approach for Buddhists to take against the Jihadist movement that seeks to subjugate Jews, Christians, and Buddhists alike in its own religious hegemony?

As for my own views, I defer to John Stuart Mill. In summary..."War is a terrible thing, but not the worst thing. What is worse is the degraded spirit that believes nothing is worth fighting for and who maintains his freedom only because of the efforts of better men than himself."

War is a terrible thing. But are there never practical benefits to its application? German and Japanese dominion of their respective continents remained and unrealized dream because of the force of arms, and therefore, genocide was eventually stopped there. Slavery, seemingly permanent in America, was forever vanquished through Union conquest of the South.

What is to be done in the face of implacable evil and violent people and regimes? Can one truly be a committed Buddhist and support violence in limited circumstances? Or conversely, can one be a committed Buddhist and NOT support violence in the defense of life and liberty?


Thoughts?

One can be a Buddhist and accept that Violence occurs, but not agree with the reasons for it.
One can be a Buddhist and be against violence, but accept that Violence - in defence - may be necessary, even though we abhor it.
I see and witness violence. I am fortunate, blessed - or whatever adjective you may wish to apply - to have never experienced life-threatening violence against me or anyone I know.
But I know it goes on, I understand the reasoning behind it, and can accept that those involved feel they can justify it.

But I'm with the Buddha on the Hatred thing.

Certainly one must accept that violence occurs, or else not live in reality. So you are saying that violence CAN indeed be morally justified in specific circumstances? (i.e. defense)

If not hatred, how should one feel towards evil foes who wish to do innocents harm? As an aside, the Bible only condones hatred for one thing, and that is evil. "If you love the Lord, hate evil..." (Psalms 97:10)

Can you really do violence to someone you don't already hate?

According to the Bodhisattva vows in Mahayana Buddhism, killing is justified if it serves a higher good. For example, fighting the Nazis to stop genocide and the subjugation of Eastern and Western Europe. The Dalai Lama has said that if he had run into Hitler, knowing what he knows now about the regime, he would have killed him.

Tibet also armed to defend itself at least twice in its history--once when the Chinese invaded under the 13th Dalai Lama (they recruited soldiers from the ranks of the warrior monks in the monasteries, according to the DL), and again with the more recent Chinese invasion. Monasteries always had a cache of weapons for their own defense against attacks by other monasteries, historically, according to the DL in "The Story of Tibet". Another example of Buddhist warfare is the Zen community's support of the Japanese gov't in WWII. There are several books out about Buddhism and war. There's Zen At War, and "Buddhism, War and Nationalism: Chinese Monks in the Struggle Against Japanese Aggression" by Xue Yu.

Are you aware that there are 2 Buddhist army chaplains in the US armed forces?

also: "Buddhist Warfare". All these titles are available on Amazon.

Dakini,

Thanks for the book recommendations. I will have to check out that Xue Yu book.

The buddhadharma is for everyone. Not just non-violent people. Some people are warriors and some people are civilians. Just because war is somewhat necessary does not mean that an individual pacifist must partake in it. One of the five precepts is not to kill. Yet you can still benefit from buddha's teachings even when you do not follow the precepts.

So @KnightofBuddha, Is your purpose to kick the hornet's nest or find an answer? I would think this would be a subjective question, and having been someone who has lived through real life, life threatening violence and torture, I surely have a different opinion than you do. Also, your opinion will likely continue to evolve as you age and experience more.

Can you 'do violence toward'/kill someone you do not feel is evil or harbor hatred towards? Yes. For reasons justifiable? In my opinion, yes. Can you do this and still be 'Buddhist?' Yes.

Fighting for a government within a controlled group of soldiers is usually different, so it seems now days, than directly fighting for the life of your family, yourself, your home, your land...You are still a slave to the man who has enslaved you within your own country. You never did state why you joined [the military], and I'm curious? You're using a Civil War general's likeness as your avatar, a Union general at that, and I'm curious why?


Would I fight for America? No. Would I fight for my life? Yes, and I have. Would I fight for the lives for whom I care for? Yes. And for those who I don't know well but deserve to live? Yes, but even so, I wouldn't ever join the current US Military.

Sorry if I'm sounding fragmented, but I'm wondering what the motivation behind the question is and I'm not sure what kind of answer you're actually looking for here? Can't tell if you're struggling in beliefs, attacking this particular forum's beliefs, or just rebutting pacifistic beliefs?

When you go to war ask yourself what your motivation is. Is it to get the bad guys or is to help the people of the country you're in and protect your country? To me thats the difference between negative and positive. Though I rekon no matter the motivation killing will have some negative karma associated with it.

It is a very grey area IMO. The governments can justify killing because of crime, but the average joe cannot, unless they are in the army. Defending 'your' country, how is it your country in the first place? Or anybodies country for that matter. In reality, the world is one entire thing that happens to inhabit life. We made these boarders that you see on maps that we all fight and kill for.

Yes if Hitler never got as far as he did, then many people would be alive today, but I probably would not as my grandparents met in WII, one being German and the other English. So I am sure that a lot of life became of that era as well as a lot of death.

It goes back to your path, your stance on buddhism. I personally 'try' to live my life and say, 'what would the buddha do?' He would not take up arms and slaughter people, he did not even defend his own village when it was totally ravaged. I do not see any war that is happening in this day and age that the Amrican Government is involved in deemed to be a 'just' war. But that is just my opinion, one in a vast pool of opinions that all have their own value.

Good luck with your ambition and I hope that you get where you want to be. Best of wished with your engagement also :thumbsup:

My philosophy on violence is to use it in self-defense if need be in the moment. Revenge is a very dangerous path riddled with negative karmic consequences.

As far as violence on a MACRO scale (war)....tricky tricky tricky. Once war has started I'm not quick to judge. The axis of the problem is the reason for the war and how it is being conducted. Do I trust the people in command to make good judgment calls? To not kill innocents? To be committed to diffusing situations?


But then, why not spend money and training in DIPLOMACY? In actual conflict resolution. Not in how to do war. But how to do peace. Spending money on how to achieve peace with all the knowledge and technology and intelligence available.

It seems to me, the more wise, evolved race would be able to live side by side resolving issues without war and violence. Wars have always been about land, or money, or something else that involves greed,ignorance and hate- the three poisons in buddhism. I just guess that we are not yet at the stage where at a species we can stay away from conflicts like this. If we are to advance from our planet when the room and resources run out, we must have advanced beyond this ignorant and foolish way of living on one planet.

ThailandTom said:

It seems to me, the more wise, evolved race would be able to live side by side resolving issues without war and violence. Wars have always been about land, or money, or something else that involves greed,ignorance and hate- the three poisons in buddhism. I just guess that we are not yet at the stage where at a species we can stay away from conflicts like this. If we are to advance from our planet when the room and resources run out, we must have advanced beyond this ignorant and foolish way of living on one planet.

Agreed on your points, and in turn would not have to use violence in defense against those who are violent for those poisonous reasons/motivations.

So @KnightofBuddha, Is your purpose to kick the hornet's nest or find an answer?

Well I think I phrased my question respectfully enough. I believe especially given my occupation of choice, it is of paramount importance to come to grips with these issues if I am to maintain a clean conscience. I in no way intended to kick a hornet's nest, but rather to see what the differing opinions are on the matter, and how they compare to my own.

You never did state why you joined [the military], and I'm curious? You're using a Civil War general's likeness as your avatar, a Union general at that, and I'm curious why?

I joined the military after spending many years studying religious doctrines about jihad and in particular what modern day jihadists have done and hope to achieve. I believe it's a cancerous ideology that needs to be crushed militarily if Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims wish to live in a civil society. The US military is on the forefront of combating these vicious men, and I believe it is the right thing to do to fight men who would enslave and subjugate women, minorities, and those whom disagree with them.

As for the avatar, yes, I am a great admirer of William Sherman. His genius brought about the freeing of hundreds of thousands of slaves directly, and his ruining of the plantation economy effectively ended the Confederacy, abolishing slavery for good in America. I picked a Union general because I think the Confederacy was evil, and the Union right.

Would I fight for America? No. Would I fight for my life? Yes, and I have. Would I fight for the lives for whom I care for? Yes. And for those who I don't know well but deserve to live? Yes, but even so, I wouldn't ever join the current US Military.

Fair enough. I would fight for both, because I believe this country, and the English speaking countries in general, have been the guarantors of liberty this past century, and I would like to see liberty survive another century.

ThailandTom said:

It seems to me, the more wise, evolved race would be able to live side by side resolving issues without war and violence. Wars have always been about land, or money, or something else that involves greed,ignorance and hate- the three poisons in buddhism. I just guess that we are not yet at the stage where at a species we can stay away from conflicts like this. If we are to advance from our planet when the room and resources run out, we must have advanced beyond this ignorant and foolish way of living on one planet.

Yes, well unfortunately that is not the species our planet has been endowed with. Not all people behave rationally, as some will seek to dominate and enslave others through war. I believe they must be confronted.

I don't think wars are always about those things. The most dangerous wars of all are those fought out of a belief that one is carrying out God's work. I don't think there is any greed involved in that, although certainly hate usually follows.

Hmmm. Well, this is one thread I won't be posting on after this post. I'd better keep my mouth shut as not to agitate people who believe the US's involvement and wars in the Middle East are a good thing. I could throw in some statistics and facts about civilian deaths/collateral damage, the army's suicide rate, the corruption surrounding the wars, the reasons 9/11 was conducted by terrorists, among other things... but nope.

Personally, I'd love to hear Mountains' response to this thread.

KnightofBuddha said:

Well I think I phrased my question respectfully enough. I believe especially given my occupation of choice, it is of paramount importance to come to grips with these issues if I am to maintain a clean conscience. I in no way intended to kick a hornet's nest, but rather to see what the differing opinions are on the matter, and how they compare to my own.....
..........
......Fair enough. I would fight for both, because I believe this country, and the English speaking countries in general, have been the guarantors of liberty this past century, and I would like to see liberty survive another century.

Thank you very much for clarifying, can sometimes be difficult to detect tone behind forum text. :)

I think the morality within defensive violence is a struggle. I am not a violent person by nature and feel compassion for those around me to the point where I will avoid it at all costs, even if they are violent towards me. However, in some situations, you face an alternative choice to do nothing and condone violence in another way or watch it happen to another, which is also morally wrong in my opinion. That does not mean that I am violent out of anger or hatred, it is merely because in that moment, it is the most positive course of action available, (which means I've exhausted all my non-violent means). If you let someone next to you die while you have means to prevent it from happening, I believe that death is also upon your shoulders. You are allowing harm to come to another...So it is a very subjective matter than only you, while you are making that choice, can really evaluate.

You are entitled to your opinions. I wish you best of luck in your engagement. :)

KnightofBuddha said:

I joined the military after spending many years studying religious doctrines about jihad and in particular what modern day jihadists have done and hope to achieve. I believe it's a cancerous ideology that needs to be crushed militarily if Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims wish to live in a civil society. The US military is on the forefront of combating these vicious men, and I believe it is the right thing to do to fight men who would enslave and subjugate women, minorities, and those whom disagree with them.

I question the wisdom of this view. Not that radical Islam is a cancerous ideology but in the sense that combat is what they want and I'm not sure you can kill them faster than you create them by practicing violence in their land.

I'm not sure there's a very effective diplomatic way to deal with these people though, so maybe military confrontation is best. But the idea that an ideology can be crushed militarily I don't think is very effective either.

MindGate said:

Hmmm. Well, this is one thread I won't be posting on after this post. I'd better keep my mouth shut as not to agitate people who believe the US's involvement and wars in the Middle East are a good thing. I could throw in some statistics and facts about civilian deaths/collateral damage, the army's suicide rate, the corruption surrounding the wars, the reasons 9/11 was conducted by terrorists, among other things... but nope.

Personally, I'd love to hear Mountains' response to this thread.

Well...in most cases similar to the one here, that falls on deaf ears until eyes have seen a little more, and even then...

PS: Not sure you will get most of a choice in that regard doing what you're going to be doing, honestly. Your choice is pretty much taken away from you when you sign off with the military...unless you have the gumption to make the choice to leave, and then it's view...well...pretty negatively. So, I guess you need to make peace with choosing to overall not have a choice in who's life you're taking for what exact reason or change your mind now.

PSS: Leaving this subject alone after this post.

MindGate said:

Hmmm. Well, this is one thread I won't be posting on after this post. I'd better keep my mouth shut as not to agitate people who believe the US's involvement and wars in the Middle East are a good thing. I could throw in some statistics and facts about civilian deaths/collateral damage, the army's suicide rate, the corruption surrounding the wars, the reasons 9/11 was conducted by terrorists, among other things... but nope.

Personally, I'd love to hear Mountains' response to this thread.

Well I'm regretting not hearing more from you actually. I would have been interested in getting your take on the matter. All those topics you mentioned are of interest to me. Just curious why you do think 9/11 happened?

I question the wisdom of this view. Not that radical Islam is a cancerous ideology but in the sense that combat is what they want and I'm not sure you can kill them faster than you create them by practicing violence in their land.

.

Well it's not that it's necessarily combat that they want, but their desire for a Caliphate and implementation of Sharia necessitates violent conflict with people who aren't sanguine about being subjugated. In the same way lebensraum eventually must deal with the inconvenient fact of other peoples' borders.

I have no illusions of jihadist doctrines going away simply because of the current wars, but the intention, however well or poorly executed, is ultimately containment.

But aren't there plenty of Christian elements in the US who want to impose a medieval morality on society, too? This is about fundamentalism, which is in every religion. Somebody should be fighting fundamentalism at home.

KnightofBuddha said:

implementation of Sharia necessitates violent conflict

Do the rolling back of Roe v. Wade, leading to banning abortions, and requirements that "Creationism" be taught in schools also necessitate violent conflict?

Fair enough. So where are the endless streams of Christian theologians demanding death for Jews, subjugation of non-Christians as second-class citizens, and violent overthrow of the not-Christian-enough government?

I oppose Creationism in school and the wholesale banning of abortion, but this in no way necessitates violence with people who feel differently. If I wanted to make an ethnic or religious group second-class citizens, or subjugate women into a life in the shadows...then yes, this would lead to violence.

OK. Just asking. Good answer. :)

How realistic do you think it is, especially given the serious economic problems in the US and the West in gen'l, to expect that we can "contain" Islam? Here's another thought. After Osama was killed, a few threads on the topic mushroomed. Several people argued that the best way to deal with radical Islam is to offer education to jobless youth over there, and foster economic development, so there will be more jobs. That type of approach tends to win more friends than war does.

Just picking your brain.... :wave:

In 1962 the Cuba-crisis could have triggered a full scale nuclear war.
It would have been for the sake of liberty and it could be executed by some “better men” surely; but that wouldn’t have made it any less destructive.

The motives to enter war are not always ideologically pure and noble. Reality is far more complex. The incorruptible goodness of the victorious side is created in hindsight.

Our Dutch eighty-year war was a Protestant revolt against Catholic nonsense and abuse of power. That’s what I was told as a kid. “We” were the noble freedom-fighters and the Spanish were the oppressors. Only later I learned about the economic side to it. The Spanish taxes. And only later I realized that the soldiers were professionals. They came from any poor region in Europe and would fight for the ideal of getting paid.

I just think human society is a very complicated thing. Violence in many forms has always been part of it.
I’m not a pacifist - I guess - I just hate war.

And also I hate all the lies that are told to justify it.
Just for the record I hate all the lies; the Dutch lies, the American lies and of course the Islamist lies too.

I spent 20 years in the military and I have no regrets. I was no more a slave to the govt than anyone else working a govt job... I actually enjoyed my work.

There are many anti US military folks here, so you will not find a lot of support, but I will salute you.

It really comes down to your intentions and beliefs, not what other people decide you should do, be it pro or anti military views.

The closest thing to a kind of knighthood in combination with Buddhism is – as far as I know – the Japanese samurai.

But for samurai also, reality is more complex than myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai#Myth_and_reality
Quote:
Most samurai were bound by a code of honor and were expected to set an example for those below them. A notable part of their code is seppuku (切腹 seppuku?) or hara kiri, which allowed a disgraced samurai to regain his honor by passing into death, where samurai were still beholden to social rules. Whilst there are many romanticized characterizations of samurai behavior such as the writing of Bushido (武士道 Bushidō?) in 1905, studies of Kobudo and traditional Budō indicate that the samurai were as practical on the battlefield as were any other warrior.
Despite the rampant romanticism of the 20th century, samurai could be disloyal and treacherous (e.g., Akechi Mitsuhide), cowardly, brave, or overly loyal (e.g., Kusunoki Masashige). Samurai were usually loyal to their immediate superiors, who in turn allied themselves with higher lords. These loyalties to the higher lords often shifted; for example, the high lords allied under Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉) were served by loyal samurai, but the feudal lords under them could shift their support to Tokugawa, taking their samurai with them. There were, however, also notable instances where samurai would be disloyal to their lord or daimyo, when loyalty to the emperor was seen to have supremacy

Telly03 said:

I spent 20 years in the military and I have no regrets. I was no more a slave to the govt than anyone else working a govt job... I actually enjoyed my work.

There are many anti US military folks here, so you will not find a lot of support, but I will salute you.

It really comes down to your intentions and beliefs, not what other people decide you should do, be it pro or anti military views.

I spent twelve years total in the Air Force, beginning back during the Vietnam war days. The last four years I was a practicing Buddhist. Yes, you find most Buddhists are pacifists of some degree. Funny, except for a few gung-ho kids and idiots, the people I worked with in the military were also pacifists to some extent. You think the guys being sent to the battlefield want to be shot at or forced to kill people before they kill you? We also were well aware that killing people and blowing things up did not solve the problems humanity faced in the long run.

But being against wars is different from thinking the warriors are all heartless murderers or that we can't strive for a moral life in uniform. The same thing goes when talking about the police or anyone who carries a gun as part of their job. I hope you stay safe in your career and serve with honor and do what is right. A big part of being a soldier is obedience to orders, of course. I hope you are never placed in the position to choose between obedience and honor, but if so, I hope you choose honor. Good luck.

Dakini said:

OK. Just asking. Good answer. :)

How realistic do you think it is, especially given the serious economic problems in the US and the West in gen'l, to expect that we can "contain" Islam? Here's another thought. After Osama was killed, a few threads on the topic mushroomed. Several people argued that the best way to deal with radical Islam is to offer education to jobless youth over there, and foster economic development, so there will be more jobs. That type of approach tends to win more friends than war does.

Just picking your brain.... :wave:

I agree with you on the first matter. No country, no matter how rich, can afford both a large military and a large welfare state. It really has to choose one or the other. I have my preference of course.

The problem with the economic/education argument is that the most diabolical in the jihadist movement are very smart, educated, and often wealthy men. Bin Laden was a billionaire, and the 9/11 hijackers were all well-educated, mostly middle class men who lived successful lives. The homegrown variety of jihadists like the Fort Hood shooter and the attempted DC metro bomber were very well-to-do before opting for holy war.

I think the "poverty causes terrorism" line is true in the inverse. "Terrorism causes poverty."

It is a VERY tricky situation. As you pointed out though, poverty causes terrorism, yes. People in certain parts of the world slowly become brainwashed into a certain mindset enforced by envy and hate. Terrorism also causes poverty, but to the terrorists, the ones doing the dirty work as it is, are not subject to this. It is like a mafia almost.

I still have faith in our species. In recent years we have started to pull together more and more which is fundamental to our survival within the next 100+ years. Football or soccer tournaments worldwide, things like the UN and EU, there are many examples that michio kaku explains in this link I shall post.

All of the deveolped countries no longer wage war on each other. If we are lucky, the undevolped countries will follow trend in time for us to transcend this planet as it is impossible for us to continue this way for more than 90 years according to Steven Hawking.

Thank you Knight for being who you are.
Your thinking is correct: The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world.
I wish you the best; I wish you peace.

Hmm, who is the USA? The government, the population, the people in the upper class, the people in middle class, the lower class, or what?

ThailandTom said:

Hmm, who is the USA? The government, the population, the people in the upper class, the people in middle class, the lower class, or what?

All of the above.

ThailandTom said:

Hmm, who is the USA? The government, the population, the people in the upper class, the people in middle class, the lower class, or what?

You left one element out: the corporations. I'm not sure I'd agree 100% with the US-as-force-for-good vision. Look at all the murders of democratically-elected progressive Third-World presidents during the Cold War. And let's not forget that the US created Noriega, Osama, and installed and propped up dictators. Is that ok, if we define fighting the spread of communism as "right intent"? There's a hot potato of a debate topic. The US orchestrated coup in Guatemala in the 50's that brought to power what became the one of the bloodiest regimes the world has ever seen was corporate-driven, but the line that was sold to Eisenhower was that the purpose was to stop the spread of Cuban-style communism. His advisers were heavily invested in banana plantations there (United Fruit).

But we digress a bit. I admire Knight for having the guts to post his OP and for being willing to discuss with people his POV respectfully. And people are being respectful in return. This is a very interesting and enjoyable thread, just for the fact that in spite of the controversial topic, people are having a very pleasant and stimulating exchange. Way to go, everybody! :thumbsup:

The US has its share of failures, but it helps to look at intent vs results

To the OP:
I don't believe in rebirth so your actions in the here and now will make for your kamma in the here and now. So do what is right, do what is honorable.
For me Buddhism comes down to understanding the three marks of existence and kamma. There surely is no reason that one could be a military officer and not practice these fundamental truths. I would suggest that using these as your guide would indeed help to make you a very fine officer, knowing all circumstances pass, that these things you might kling to are not you, that forgetting these things will cause your and those you serve suffering and that actions, speech and thinking will have definite results.
I guess the heart of the question is can you be in a profession that kills and still be a Buddhist? I would say yes, given my above definition of what Buddhism is to me.
If someone were to break into my home to cause harm to my wife, my children or myself I would not hesitate in defending them. If this resulted in this persons injury or death, then so be it. Their kamma for wanting to cause physical harm to my family would have ripened.
The motives of governments on the other hand are questiionable. Would I kill for a government? I am not sure.
Should we have fought and stopped the Japanese in their conquest of Asia? Sure. They invited war on us. Did we need to kill upward of 500,000 civilians in saturation bombing raids? The same could be said in regards to the Germans in that same war.
WW2 was the popular war, so it is really not all that fair to use that as an example.
What about Vietnam? Was it justified?
Are the current engagements we are involved in honorable, ethical and justifiable?
So you have to ask yourself those things.
My grandfather was a marine in the 1st Marine Div. in WW2. He survived Guadalcanal, Cape Glouster, and Peleliu. About a month before he died, about 50 years after WW2 ended, he started telling me again about his involvement in smashing a group of Japanese tanks that were attacking on the airfield at Peleliu. He said that they threw everything that they had at them. Destroyed them in minutes. Approximately 12 tanks. He said he went over to the wrekage after it was over. He said to me "I saw what I did" he started cyring, 50 years later. He seldom talked about the war and I never saw him cry until then. He died a month later.
I loved my grandfather dearly. He was good man.
Whatever you do, how ever honorable you conduct yourself, your actions will bear fruit.
I wish you the best sir. May you be blessed in your marriage and in the decisions you make for yourself and your men.
All the best to you,
Todd

I am speechless. I can only shake my head and cry.

Gui said:

I am speechless. I can only shake my head and cry.

No need to cry Gui. Whats with the tears?

Children going to war out of ignorance and fear and for the acceptance of old men of myths. It never ends.

My thoughts? Having you known you for a while, it sounds like your views have evolved and matured, and that they'll continue to do so. What you think about violence and war has changed, and may change even more in the future. It's to be expected, of course. All I can say is that I have a different perspective on the effectiveness of nonviolent solutions to war and violence in general, and there's probably nothing I can say that'll change yours seeing as you've already dedicated yourself to the US Army. I just hope that you don't end up regretting your decision by doing things that later weigh your conscience down, such as was the case with Howard Zinn and the realization of what he did as a bombardier in WW II. Just because you have noble intentions doesn't mean you'll always end up doing noble things.

Best of luck, my friend.

sndymorn said:

.....The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world....

I disagree with the above statement, completely. In my view, The US has always appeared to have a gung-ho attitude which has either been as a result of a desire to conquer, or a desire for revenge.
While there are an awful lot of US citizens who deplore this attitude, I find, from my experience, they are still a minority.
One might view the US as a force for good, but I doubt their intentions.....

federica said:

The US has always appeared to have a gung-ho attitude which has either been as a result of a desire to conquer, or a desire for revenge.
While there are an awful lot of US citizens who deplore this attitude, I find, from my experience, they are still a minority.

Are we at the part of the discussion where we make vague generalizations about entire cultures already? Last one to Godwin's Law is a colonialist!

A Prayer for Peace

In beauty, sitting on a lotus flower,
is Lord Buddha, quiet and solid.
Your humble disciple,
calm and pure of heart,
forms a lotus flower with his hands,
faces you with deep respect,
and offers a heartfelt prayer:

Homage to all Buddhas in the ten directions.
Please have compassion for our suffering.
Our land has been at war for two decades.
Divided, it is a land of tears
and blood and bones of young and old.
Mothers weep till their tears are dry
while sons on distant fields decay.
Its beauty torn apart,
only blood and tears now flow.
Brothers killing brothers
for promises from outsiders.

Homage to all Buddhas in the ten directions.
Because of your love for all people,
have compassion on us.
Help us remember we are just one family,
North and South.
Help us rekindle our compassion and brotherhood,
and transform our separate interests
into loving acceptance for all.
May your compassion help us overcome our hatred.
May Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva's love
help the flowers bloom again in the soil of our country.
Humbly, we open our hearts to you,
so you may help us transform our karma
and water the flowers of our spirits.
With your deep understanding,
help our hearts grow light.

Homage to Shakyamuni Buddha
whose great vows and compassion inspire us.
I am determined to cultivate only thoughts
that increase trust and love,
to use my hands to perform only deeds
that build community,
to speak only words of harmony and aid.

May the merit of this prayer be transformed into peace in Vietnam.
May each of us realize this,
our deep aspiration.

~Thich Nhat Hanh


My father was in Vietnam and he asked a man in town whether he remembered the French. The man said no. He just knew that many in that generation were dead (I guess).

Lincoln said:

Are we at the part of the discussion where we make vague generalizations about entire cultures already? Last one to Godwin's Law is a colonialist!

vague generalisation is right. It's a supposition I'd be happy to have argued.
I'm not being definitive, I'm merely giving my opinion on impressions I've received. And perception is often deception...
However, the unambiguous statement -

sndymorn said:

....The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world.

- is highly debatable and questionable.
That's a discussion worth pursuing....

federica said:

sndymorn said:

.....The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world....

I disagree with the above statement, completely. In my view, The US has always appeared to have a gung-ho attitude which has either been as a result of a desire to conquer, or a desire for revenge.
While there are an awful lot of US citizens who deplore this attitude, I find, from my experience, they are still a minority.
One might view the US as a force for good, but I doubt their intentions.....

But who are we to judge the intentions of others

Telly03 said:

But who are we to judge the intentions of others

Taxpayers and voting citizens.

compassionate_warrior said:

Telly03 said:

But who are we to judge the intentions of others

Taxpayers and voting citizens.

Good point

federica said:

sndymorn said:

.....The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world....

I disagree with the above statement, completely. In my view, The US has always appeared to have a gung-ho attitude which has either been as a result of a desire to conquer, or a desire for revenge.
While there are an awful lot of US citizens who deplore this attitude, I find, from my experience, they are still a minority.
One might view the US as a force for good, but I doubt their intentions.....

While the USA may have had some revenge in mind in recent history ( Pearl Harbor and the twin towers) , the production of young men such as The Knight gives one hope that clear heads lead and the actions we take are tempered by reason.

The charge of imperialistic motives , especially in recent history , rings of name calling. A country which could have conquered the world and subjugated its people has very little to show , in territories or peoples, for such power as the world has never seen.
Please do not assert corporate hegemony as evidence of our gung ho ( means "work" and "harmony" by the way) will to a conquering end. These entities are not under my control. I speak for my government and therefore my people. My intention is now and has always been to alleviate suffering and right wrongs where it can be accomplished.

By the way, should I go all conqueror on your ass, I would instantly create a culinary police and outlaw 'bangers and mash.'
mwah ha ha ha ha

federica said:

sndymorn said:

.....The USA is mostly a force for good(right intention) in this world....

I disagree with the above statement, completely. In my view, The US has always appeared to have a gung-ho attitude which has either been as a result of a desire to conquer, or a desire for revenge.
While there are an awful lot of US citizens who deplore this attitude, I find, from my experience, they are still a minority.
One might view the US as a force for good, but I doubt their intentions.....

As Colin Powell once said, the only land Americans demand is enough to bury their dead. Would places like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan be nearly as free today if not for the benevolent hegemony of the seas by the American navy?

There are by recent estimations I've seen, nearly 110,000 American young men buried in Europe, most of them in France, Belgium, England, Italy, and the Netherlands. What colonies did they conquer for America between 1917-45? Is this too American hubris?