Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Soldiers
happyjourney
Explorer
Hi,
I haven't posted in a while but i wanted to ask something. sorry I've kinda jammed this up a bit.
I'm joining the Army and whilst I know it's what I want, I do have some conflicting thoughts when it comes to Buddhism. The main issue would obviously be related to right livelihood. Which is of course one that does not cause harm to people. This piece of darmha is mainly geared towards criminality and not modern war, however ultimately just because violence is sanctioned doesn't mean it's excusable. I think in many regards the violence of war is far far worse. Having said that though, i rationalize that it's very personal even in what would be a large scale conflict. In that even HH advocates self defense through weapons and that it's about compassion even in the face of extreme hostility. But what about when you're the aggressor? Considering that often enough soldiers are told to 'go here and shoot them'. In this respect the personal compassion feels like a veil, having compassion for the soon dead is easy.
Is compassion enough to look past the initiation of violence? Of course not, and to the same point one could put forward that all life is precious. But important also is the preservation of that life and one way this is done is through military effort. Pacifism to me at least, seems less important in Buddhism. As simply not defending yourself will not grant you enlightenment. One could kill hundreds and still be meditative, calm and happy. Obviously that's not what I'm going for but you get my point. So I guess this is the unknown though grey area, for me at least. The darmha law is part of the discipline that runs concurrent to the practice of stillness and focus. However these are in effect separate fcators in what makes one a Buddhist. One could say that buddhism is the ultimate form of realism, so it has to deal with violence and it does so with exceptional uniformity. But i think that it's naive to expect it will leave you alone because you avoid it. That is the case on a global scale just as much as it is local or interpersonal.
Please try to keep any political ideals or whatever out of this, a soldier doesn't fight for politics he fights for the battle. This is about the darmha and soldering. If you can think of other areas of conflict between the two, other justifications why my reasoning is wrong or what I could do to help coheres the two then I'd love to talk about it.
PS. Just to clarify why i'd join in the first place given my obvious disposition to you know peace . I'm joining the Australian Defense Force, we aren't going to invade a country for land or something and most of the work is peace keeping roles and small security postings. If i even see any of that as most of us are posted locally.
I haven't posted in a while but i wanted to ask something. sorry I've kinda jammed this up a bit.
I'm joining the Army and whilst I know it's what I want, I do have some conflicting thoughts when it comes to Buddhism. The main issue would obviously be related to right livelihood. Which is of course one that does not cause harm to people. This piece of darmha is mainly geared towards criminality and not modern war, however ultimately just because violence is sanctioned doesn't mean it's excusable. I think in many regards the violence of war is far far worse. Having said that though, i rationalize that it's very personal even in what would be a large scale conflict. In that even HH advocates self defense through weapons and that it's about compassion even in the face of extreme hostility. But what about when you're the aggressor? Considering that often enough soldiers are told to 'go here and shoot them'. In this respect the personal compassion feels like a veil, having compassion for the soon dead is easy.
Is compassion enough to look past the initiation of violence? Of course not, and to the same point one could put forward that all life is precious. But important also is the preservation of that life and one way this is done is through military effort. Pacifism to me at least, seems less important in Buddhism. As simply not defending yourself will not grant you enlightenment. One could kill hundreds and still be meditative, calm and happy. Obviously that's not what I'm going for but you get my point. So I guess this is the unknown though grey area, for me at least. The darmha law is part of the discipline that runs concurrent to the practice of stillness and focus. However these are in effect separate fcators in what makes one a Buddhist. One could say that buddhism is the ultimate form of realism, so it has to deal with violence and it does so with exceptional uniformity. But i think that it's naive to expect it will leave you alone because you avoid it. That is the case on a global scale just as much as it is local or interpersonal.
Please try to keep any political ideals or whatever out of this, a soldier doesn't fight for politics he fights for the battle. This is about the darmha and soldering. If you can think of other areas of conflict between the two, other justifications why my reasoning is wrong or what I could do to help coheres the two then I'd love to talk about it.
PS. Just to clarify why i'd join in the first place given my obvious disposition to you know peace . I'm joining the Australian Defense Force, we aren't going to invade a country for land or something and most of the work is peace keeping roles and small security postings. If i even see any of that as most of us are posted locally.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
With the military, either you're in or you're out. So you either have to accept that you are putting yourself in a position that will, at various times, be in conflict with your principles, or you just have to not go the military route.
Even the most Buddhist countries have armies. Even the most Buddhist countries have been in multiple, brutal wars in the their histories. Southeast Asia, the current cradle of Buddhism, has been no more a peaceful place over its history than other parts of the world. Even the most Buddhist nations have been preyed on by other nations. I hate to say it, but that's life as man has made it. And, virtually everyone on this forum is either in the military, pays taxes to support the military, is thankful for the military (although perhaps it's only through enjoying the life in their country that the military makes possible), or votes for politicians who advocate certain stances that require military protection.
The one thing you can do, if you go in, is to conduct yourself in the highest tradition when the choice is yours.
I think in the end no matter how many masters give their opinion or what the Buddha said, it will be up to you to make your own decisions how you feel is right, its your own kamma(volitional action) and vipaka(fruit) that you will have to deal with in the future.
Check out this section on right livlihood which has a whole section on being a soldier - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html
For my part, I cannot reconcile military service at all - I would not personally take part in the killing game under any circumstances that I can reasonably forsee at this juncture.
This may provide a hint of where my views lie on joining a fighting force.
I do wonder about your claim that it is possible to kill hundreds of people and still be a happy person. There are obviously many people who are soldiers who kill many and seem to live a normal life. But on the inside they are usually twisting in ways we can't fathom unless we are there. One of my very good friends has a husband who is in the National Guard. He has served many tours in the past 10 years. He does not shoot people as how we normally view soldiers. But he worked within aviation and part of his job was to retrieve fallen soldiers, and defend against any insurgents who would try to prevent them retrieving the bodies. In some cases, he did have to defend and shoot and kill people. Not hundreds. Not even dozens. But some. And it haunts him every day. he is a generally happy guy, very caring and performs a lot of service for others. But inside, it tears him up that he took lives, even in defense. So, don't assume that you can kill a person, or hundreds of them, and carry on with life as normal. It very often changes a person and not usually for the better.
Much to the amusement of the other soldiers I gave them cigarettes, a couple of bottles of water and all the food I had with me. The were ever so grateful. The lads took the mick, asking me "What are you going to do for the other 50,000 then?", but I think that was because I'd pricked their conscience.
I had plenty of opportunities to practise compassion in my 17 years service; the military isn't just about killing (though don't mistake me; ultimately that's what it trains to do).
One of our chief functions in Bosnia and Kosovo was protecting the local population and restoring order; we guarded routes so aid convoys could get through; when I was there five Italian aid workers were murdered in our area.
I think Vinlyn summed it up with his: "The one thing you can do, if you go in, is to conduct yourself in the highest tradition when the choice is yours."
I would have no problems killing if the need arose, and even now as a civilian, if I had to take a life to prevent someone being harmed, I'd take it. Much of Buddhism is about 'intention' I believe; if my intentions are good, I don't care what others think.
(from jayantha's link) "When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist."
To me this illustrates that whilst killing is undesirable, worse still is negative intention. That the karmic factor is based not on action but the thought behind action. Which is to say it's about not being driven by hate or similar motives. What i was getting at is that violence doesn't exclude Buddhism and that it's the case of Buddhism excluding violence. I was just demonstrating a point through extremes.
JohnG, You're right of course and I think in to some degree you've illustrated some reconciling points anyway. There's no time to hesitate or think about karma and I know this. It's not so much about whether I should, could or would but about bringing darmha to it. So at the least I can remain conscious of myself throughout it.
"So what do you do for a living?" you ask two Buddhists leaving a temple. One says he runs a business making candy, while another says he is a member of the Army. So which is living the "right livelihood"?
Suppose you learn that just the week before, the businessman closed a plant that put thousands out of work or ignored safety concerns that killed hundreds of people. That same week, the soldier was in a unit that risked their lives and saved hundreds of families from a terrible disaster. Does your decision change?
But it's the thought of a Buddhist in a military uniform that sends people up the wall.
I suspect the Buddhist chaplain will say much the same thing that the one in the USAF said when I was troubled with the same concerns and asked your question many years ago. The Chaplain told me that the question should not be, "Is it all right to put on a uniform," but instead ask myself every night, "What did I do today while wearing that uniform?" That holds true whether you wear a business suit or a flack jacket.
Hope this helps.
A case can be made that just being in the military supports the guys who do have to shoot the guns. That's a valid point. How about the politicians people voted for who order us into battle? How about all the people who willingly pay taxes to support the army? Where does it end? There is no group of people who desperately want peace more than a bunch of soldiers or who value life more. Oh, you have the small group of gung-ho idiots who can't wait to shoot our enemies. We called the strutting young warriors itching for a fight "targets" and tried to stay away from them.
But to my original point, if you meet someone who says they run a company but they're Buddhist, why doesn't that bother you? Because he isn't directly breaking one of the precepts? Suppose he's not killing, not stealing, not messing around with his secretary, and his business reports are accurate, no lies, and the only thing he does is give orders, not gossip. But this man might then destroy people's lives, their hopes and future by "eliminating positions" or "downsizing" or moving the factory to China so he can get his bonus this year. And all without breaking a single precept. Is he being a good Buddhist? According to the precepts, he is.
The Precepts are important, but they're not Buddhism. If you can keep every precept and still fail the 8-fold path miserably, then maybe you can break a precept and still be living a Buddhist life. Just something to think about. I spent many hours pondering this issue as a young man in the military. I still don't have any answers.
I did get a chuckle out of the "how many people willingly pay taxes to support the military." I don't think many people willingly pay taxes, we just have no choice, lol.
It is my feeling that there is no right or wrong, but an understanding that I am solely responsible for my own thoughts and actions.
"He who controls others may be powerful... But he who mastered himself is mightier still" - Lao Tzu (The Art of War)
"World Peace"
i think - this is the duality of the world we live in - every act of voilence can be justified as required from one perspective and the same act of voilence can be justified as not required from another perspective. so when an individual has to decide whether he has to act in voilence or not act in voilence, then at that point of time, the person chooses that perspective which seems ok to him based on the conditioned state of mind of that person at that point of time.
Since I do, I feel as responsible as the soldier who pulls the trigger, or the President who sends the drone. I cannot divorce myself from the act . If you , because of your principles, do not pay taxes and are willing to suffer the consequences of this act, I respect you as much as the soldier who defends me.
For all practical purposes, I am the soldier if I live in a country with an armed force and support that force with my taxes. Since there is an straight forward way, through not paying your taxes, to claim the mantle of a true pacifist I assert this position as the only way to keep your hands clean in this regard. Perhaps others on this forum can suggest another way to distance oneself from the protection one enjoys through the sacrifice of our soldiers.
Lastly, to the OP, thank you for your bravery and commitment.
As the bard said (to paraphrase ) you do mock the meat upon which you feed.
I do not advocate breaking the law but do advocate the acceptance of the profound debt we owe the military.
Someday ,I hope, we will not be asked to fund militaries, but until then I accept the same responsibility for their action (here in the USA) as the soldier in the field. I believe that karma reaches right down to the pacifist's hearth side as he or she enjoys the freedom to advocate such a position and short of refusing to fund the efforts of these brave people or moving to a nuetral unmilitarized country (? where is that) even pacifists suffer karmic consequenses , and deservedly so.
That being said, I have no idea whose karma is tainted in these matters but assert again it is not the soldier who serves to create an atmosphere of peace where perpetual peace may one day take a foothold.
I think it goes beyond taxes to every fibre and niche of our day to day - even individually, most are a hair away from a rant at least!
The issue is so huge that no one solution will seem to do - when we examine any particular part of the whole, chaos crystallises momentarily under our observation - it's hard to tell which is cause and which effect - it has a life beyond even our observation.
But we have to perch somewhere - there is a day to fill - my point is that if we consider a road with 'killing' at one end and 'no killing' at the other, it is likely that personally not killing (not pulling the trigger say) might be a step more towards 'no killing' rather than 'killing'?
No disrespect intended to anyone and mindful of the difficulties and challenges of life especially for all involved in war.
Even if you were self-employed and fearless in the face of the wrath of the IRS, by not paying taxes you would also be choosing to not contribute to public necessities such as roads, police, fire department, public schools and libraries. Taxes aren't really a good way to determine who is and isn't a pacifist.
Now onto the OP's question:
I don't know that Buddhism and the military is really a black and white issue (to me anyway). Over time I have been leaning more towards pacifism in *most* situations. I say most, because often the world we live in doesn't allow for absolutes. There may be at some time a situation where responding with force could create less suffering in the end than not engaging. Because the world as a whole isn't pacifistic, there's always a chance of being forced into a violent encounter.
However, on an individual level, being in the military means being willing to kill other people. Maybe you won't have to, but maybe you will. And once you sign up, you can't just decide to sit out a military action because you disagree with it, and you won't be able to decide to not kill. I think you need to sit down and really think about how you feel about different Buddhist principles such as karma, rebirth, the 1st precept as well as right livelihood. Also consider what are the main reasons you want to become a soldier and how these issues regarding Buddhism and soldiering come together. I can't say whether or not you should or shouldn't join the military, just that it's a big decision and one you need to know that you'll be content with down the road.
and also buddha said something very similar -
"Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself."
based on my understanding of buddhism.
a soldier is not conducive to spiritual devt.
you carry a gun n you have to follow orders.
there are many people who become soldiers
with good intentions. but soldiers are pawns
in a bigger power struggle.
there are a miilion other things that you could
do with your life. since you are inyerested in
buddhism, i suggest you do something else.
Australian soldiers were part of
the coalition of the willing.
"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle."
Now.
I think it should be noted that the Buddha never forbade soldiers, even those actively engaged in warfare, from being lay-followers; although he certainly didn't approve of their actions, either. The Buddha, much like the Jains, stressed the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness. And one of the main purposes of warfare (something a soldier is expected to engage in when duty calls), on the other hand, is to kill others, and the Buddha was clearly of the opinion that killing rarely benefits anyone, if ever. That said, my personal opinion it all comes down to intention; and if your intention isn't to harm but to protect others, I see less of a problem in your occupation as a soldier.
I suggest checking out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "Getting the Message" (pro-pacifism) and Major General Ananda Weerasekera's essay "Buddhism & The Soldier" (pro-military) for two different perspectives on the matter.
There were times where I got in trouble in the military because of my personal decisions that were based off of my personal morals against orders. However, I was always able to get myself out of trouble before a disciplinary review board, because I was able to explain my actions and the process of my thinking because of my belief structure. There was a time where I thought that I was even going to be kicked out of the military because of this, but ultimately I wounded up getting an honorable discharge without any major infractions of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Vinlyn's right: when it comes to the military, you're either in or your out. I was lucky, because I had gained the respect of certain people in my chain of command who understood and cared. You are going to be, at some point or another, forced to make a choice that will affect you for the rest of your life, but remember something:
"A king may move a man,a father may claim a son. But remember that,even when those who move you be kings or men of power,your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say "but I was told by others to do thus" or that "virtue was not convinient at the time. This will not suffice." -King Baldwin IV (The Kingdom of Heaven)
When I saw this post, I -had- to click it, but it seems that people here have already said what I would have in better words. Good luck to you. You have a long journey ahead of you.
If I were to offer my two cents about being a Buddhist soldier, it's that you're going to have to develop an awareness, philosophy, or belief that nonviolence in every situation is just as unhealthy an extreme as violence in every situation, or you will be a walking example of hypocrisy.
Do you actually believe in the battles that you may actually end up fighting? Their purpose? I joined with idealist reasons of helping the world, but was gradually corrected about the true nature of politics over time and experience. I am still a bit of an idealist, but the people I served weren't. I was disenchanted in many ways. I hope that this does not happen to you.
Be sure of yourself before you sign anything, for you'll never truly know what you've gotten yourself into until after you've been through it.
is extremely hazardous.
"Rectitude is the power of deciding upon a certain course of conduct in accordance with reason, without wavering;—to die when it is right to die, to strike when to strike is right." -Inazo Nitobe
"Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the right regrets." -Arthur Miller
We are all dying. We are all ultimately dead men. What matters most is that at the end of our roads, is that we would have the right regrets.
"Every man dies, not every man really lives." -William Wallace
@happyjourney :: I will ask you what I asked a friend of mine who wanted to join the army (and ultimately did. He's actually on his way out now. Served his time.): I am not for the military, but I am for experience and wisdom. When at the end of your road, will you regret not having joined, if you didn't?
If you MUST join, join for the right reasons, if there even truly are any. That's all I ask. Don't become a drone, keep your head and think on your own, even if it leads you into trouble sometimes.