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.
Would Japan, Taiwan, etc, etc be "free" today without American hegemony?
1) When was Japan ever colonized or under a threat where the Americans needed to 'save' them? 2) When did Americans 'save' Taiwan?
Are you American? Or live in the States? If so, why? If you believed the country you live in is as wretched as that, why bother staying? I certainly would not want to. Not everyone has the financial means to just pick up and move.
You live in a strange world different than my own. The world you would have us live in would be filled with far more evil than exists today. War has never solved anything? What history books are you reading? The Civil War lead to the unshackling of slaves (no matter what Lost Causers say), the Allied vanquishing of Nazism meant that the Jews would not be completely exterminated. I would love for you to read "Knights of Bushido" written about the Japanese war crimes in Asia. Have you any idea the torture and cruelty that was inflicted on China and the rest of East Asia? Read and still say war never solves anything, and you deserve a medal. So are you defending Japan or vilifying it? Defending China or vilifying it?
And why the " " sneer quotes on "free"? Do you see no objective difference in freedom between North and South Korea or Taiwan and China? Again, how did the USA intervene in the Chinese Civil War that made Taiwan more "free" than China? IIRC, Taiwan was under martial rule until the 80s, and during that time, Taiwan was pretty freaking fascist.
Buddhism is a religion well known for its teachings about love and compassion. The ultimate goal of a person treading the path of Buddhism is the attainment of perfect iner peace. Buddhism considers war and conflict as evil and teaches how an individual could transcend the universal tendency to engage in conflicts, debates, dispues and wars. The doctrine of the Buddha is such that one who loves in accordance with it succeeds in living in the world without coming into conflict with anyone. The Buddhist path of moral development is described as the noble and incomparable path of peace.
According to Buddhism, the foremost truth abut the human condition is the existence of dukkha. The term dukkha connotes all disappointments, frustrations, discontents, unhappiness as well as the unsatisfactory state of affairs characteristic of the world of mental and physical nature. The persistence of dukkha in all its different forms is dependent on the activity of unwhilesome mental processes referred to in Buddhism as asava (influxes), anusaya (latent evil) and kilesa (psychological defilements). All inner psychological conflicts as well as conflicts produced in society are traced in Buddhism to these psychological causes. All wars, according to the Buddhist view, originate in the minds of people. Buddhist teachings maintain that the mental processes referred to as unskilled or unwholesome (P.akusala) determine the behaviour of the large majority of living beings. Sakkapaiiha Sutta draws attention : Devas, men, Asuras, nagas, Gandhabbas and whatever other different kinds of communities are there, it occurs to them that they ought to live without mutual hatred, violence, enmity and malice. yet for all they live with mutual hatred, violence and malice.
In buddhism canonical mythology, there is reference to two types of celestial beings, one representing the righteous, the devas, and the other representing the unrighteous, the asuras. The 2 groups are mentioned as engaing in war from time to time. Sakka, the most devout Buddhist deity led the battlefront of the devas against the evil asuras. Somethimes Sakka is represented as ordering the leaders of his armies like Suvlra and Suslma to act vigilantly and effenctively against the aggressive enemy forces. However, in such instances Sakka concedes the fact that the Buddhist goal of nibblina is of much greater worth than the victory over a mundance conflict. Sakka himself advices the combatants on his side that when they are overcome with their fear in the battlefield, confronted by the advancing enemy forces, they should take courage by looking towards the might and glory of Sakka or that of any of the other powerful deities in order to be rid of their fear. The Buddha says that by this means they will not always be rid of their fear because neither Sakka nor any of the other deities is free from lust, hatred and delusion. The Buddha says that his bhikkhu disciples who may be overcome by fear when they battle against the inner foes of the mind meditating in desolate places may look towards the Buddha to be rid of their fear. In this case, they would indeed succeed.In another instance, the Sakka speaks to the Buddha abut the joys and happiness he experienced by becoming victorious over asuras after engaging them in war. But Sakka says that the joy he experienced then was associated with the victory obtained from violent anned conflict and therefore did not conduce to the Buddhist gaol of liberation. He contrasts that joy with the joy, which is free from any associations with violence that he experienced after listening to the good teaching of the Buddha. That, he says, is joy that leads to disenchantment with all worldly things and to the ultimate peace of nibblina. Namo Amituofo
This same thing comes up in vegetarianism. There are ways to justify both war and meat eating.
But nonetheless if you don't want to live in a world where you are involved in killing the power is in your hands to be a peaceful vegetarian. We have choices.
:thumbsup:
War involves violent behaviour on the part of those who directly participate in it, and voilence proceeds from malice and hatred whether it is motivated by the desire to achieve what is conceived as a just cause or not. Therefore the cononical teachings often emphasize the importance of conciliatory methods of resolving conflicts before embarking on war. The ethical teachings of the Dhammapada maintain thatbatred can never be appeased by hatred and that it can only be appeased by non-hatred. Forebearance and non-injury are considered as cardinal virtues of rulers. Buddha himself had intervened in situations where people had thought of resolving their problems through war, and persuaded them to resort to peaceful and conciliatory methods of resolving conflicts, drawing their attention to the intrinsic worth of human lives.
Buddhist connonical accounts highlight the ethical qualities of the righteous party by showing that although they are compelled by circumstances to engage in war for the purpose of self-defence, they do not resort to unnecessary acts of cruelty even towards the defeated. The righteous party in war avoids harm to the innocent and is ready to pardon even the defeated enemy. Skilful methods are adopted in order to cause the least harm. Texts such as the Ummagga Jiitaka illustrate well cases where the enemy could be defeated without injury to and destruction of life.
In several other contexts such as the Kalahavivada Sutta, the buddha explains the psychological origins of such conflict, Conflict is explained in these instances as a consequences of an unenlightened response to one's sensory environment. As long as people lack of insightful understanding of the mechanical nature of the reactions to the sensory environment produced by unwholesome roots of psychological motivation conflict in society cannot be avoided. Buddhism traces conflict in society to certain instinctual responses of people such as the attraction to what is pleasant, the repulsion against what is unpleasant, the pursuit of what gives pleasure, the psychological friction against what produces displeasure, the great desire to protect one;s own possessions, the irritable feeling expereicned when other persona enjoy possessions that one is incapable of acquiring, competing claims on limited resources, ideological disagreements involving dogmatic clinging to one's own view and so on. The selfish pursuit of sense pleasure is considered as the root cause of the conflict. Where there is sympathetic concern, compassion, sharing, charitableness and generosity conflict can be minimised. The latter attitudes, however, are not instinctive. They need to be cultivated through proper reflection and insightful understanding.The only instance in which Buddhist canonical sources speak of victory or conquest through righteousness is where reference is made to the political principles of a cakkavatti who conquers territory not with the force of arms but through principles of morality. The Buddha countered the prevailing belief that soliers of war who fight for a cause could, as a consequence of their rightfful performance of duty, aspire to attain a heavenly rebirth if they succumb to their injuries while in combat. According to the Buddha, one who fights a war does not generate wholesome thoughts but thoughts of malice and hatred, which are absolutely unwholesome (S.IV308). Therefore, their future destiny will be a woedul one, which is in accordance with their unwholesome kamma.
There is no doubt that in the modern civilized world, war r aggression motivated by imperialist and expansionist intentions is subjected to universal condemnation. Similarly deprivation of human rights and oppression of the weak by the strong is also widely open to moral condemnation. However it is to be noted that wach pary currently engaged in war attempts to show that violence is the only alternative availble to achieve what is perceived to be the righteous cause. The point made by the Buddha in this connection is that people are psychologically incapable of forming opinions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous while being immersed in their defiled psychological condition. They may express strng convictions about what is just and right, but when objectively examined they turn out to be mere rationalizations of their pre-conceived notions, desires, cravings, likes and dislikes. When people make decisions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust while they are still affect by the roots of evil, greed, hatred and delusion their judgements are mere rationalization. :thumbsup:
May all be well, be safe and be compassionate for human dignity and world peace. Namo Amituofo
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2012
War involves violent behaviour on the part of those who directly participate in it, .... ...When people make decisions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust while they are still affected by the roots of evil, greed, hatred and delusion, their judgements are mere rationalization.
This is as brilliant a response to 'Buddhism and Violence' as you're ever going to get, KoB. Read, mark and inwardly digest, and dismount from that high horse of self-justification, because violence as you intend it, has no place here.
and before LeonBasin can say it, 'Interesting thread, thanks for sharing!'
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Oh, and by the way, @Spaceless, unless you are the direct author of these texts, please post reference to where they came from and by whom they were written. it is a requirement to give reference to such material. It's good material... but is it originally yours?
There are only 6 reviews of this book so it is hard to tell, but one person gave it 5 stars, but I suspect Buddhists may not like the book and so the fewer stars.
I'm new to Buddhism and came to this forum specifically looking for a Buddhist discussion on the concept of a "just war”. I found what I was looking for here Several intelligent posters bravely strayed from the precept of Buddhist non violence, saving this from being a bland party line discussion. The views of these posters differ from the majority of the folks here, so I guess it’s to be expected-even in a Buddhist forum- that they might be meet with closed minds. Differing opinions are hard to hear and can be very frustrating, still I was surprised that even the moderator seemed so patronizing and intolerant.
Read, mark and inwardly digest, and dismount from that high horse of self-justification, because violence as you intend it, has no place here.
This should be the ideal place to have an open discussion about whether war is justified, isn’t that what the topic is?
"Do not kill". Murder applies only to humans. Killing applies to all sentient beings.
@teacup Reviewing the OP, I see you're right. More precisely, the topic, I think, is: are the wars the US is in justified. That's a different question from the one you stated.
Is war ever justified? Well, one could stretch the "greater good' principle of the precepts and say: maybe, sometimes. Like stopping the Nazi war and genocide machine. That sounds like a just war. As for the question: are any of the US' current wars justified, I'll leave that to others.
Is this more along the lines of what you were looking for? Welcome, by the way.
@Mountains; You made an earlier post regarding that we are in the middleeast for their oil. Yes and no, not the actual physical oil but an oil currency war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare To the OP to believe that all war is not predicated on money or power is naive.
To the OP to believe that all war is not predicated on money or power is naive.
Does anyone know what the US involvement in the war in Kosovo was predicated on? Supposedly human rights. I'd really like to know what the hidden agenda was, if there was one.
@Teacup, the original poster asked if war was justified from a buddhist context. From a context outside of buddhism there can be a great debate. But within buddhism the precept against killing does apply to war.
So already the discussion is liken to asking from a buddhist prospective can you can steal property, lie, have sex with married person, and be a drunk.
Yes you can do all of those things. But buddha did not recommend those things as wise. Still it is better to do only one of them than all five of course.
A teaching in the Tibetan tradition may apply somewhat. The Tibetan tradition is a different lineage than the Pali Canon and some folks doubt it came from the buddha. Anyhow the teaching in this Tibetan tradition is that there are five families of buddhas: the incorrigables, the hinayana - those who study in a group seeking self enlightenment, the secret or solitary students who follow their own counsel or in a secret society, those who adapt to whoever is around them, and the mahayana - those who study in a group which seeks enlightenment for all beings. Each of those families of buddhas may attain enlightenment but they have differences amongst them.
The incorrigibles do not know the difference between that which helps them and that which harms them. They do harmful things and think it is good. And when they do helpful things they think that is bad. I mean helpful from the perspective of concern for your own and others welfare and learning. They take a long time to become buddhas. Many lifetimes. But the text says that if they can imagine giving an enlightened being a flower, even if they are in the deepest hell, they to may make progress and eventually attain the goal.
To the OP to believe that all war is not predicated on money or power is naive.
Does anyone know what the US involvement in the war in Kosovo was predicated on? Supposedly human rights. I'd really like to know what the hidden agenda was, if there was one.
The wars in the middle east certainly are predicated on money and power. They are about economic control. Kosovo? There are many opinions. Maybe if one likes being the worlds police man, may be it was a good idea.
To the OP to believe that all war is not predicated on money or power is naive.
Does anyone know what the US involvement in the war in Kosovo was predicated on? Supposedly human rights. I'd really like to know what the hidden agenda was, if there was one.
I don't know, but I'm sure we can make something up... people buy into this stuff pretty easily. Let me know what you want it to be and I'll help you spread it
Killing and dying for coporations sounds like a lofty and honorable goal! In another 11years (God willing if our state of prepetual warfare continues unabated and it most certainly will as terrorism, because its a tactic, will never end) my seven year old be old enough to join and "do his part" Maybe I'll get a flag as they salute my son's corpse, while shoveling dirt on him. These perpetual wars have done nothing but enrich corporate interests/the military industrial complex, killed alot of people, have place an inordinant and unsustainable financial burden upon this country and through the (un)patriot act and the NDAA has done nothing but shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One can't have a democracy and a state of prepetual war.
Care to finish this statement? Carter abrogated the defense treaty with Taiwan. Since when do we have a treaty with Taiwan? Did some other President write and sign a new treaty at some point?
OK, I guess that was a draft that never made it out... not sure where I was going with it, but here's this...
The treaty was replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act, and it does not specifically state that we will defend Taiwan, but it suggests that we could in such language:
"to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
Here's an interesting clip from National Georgraphic talking about a gene mutation called the "Warrior Gene" that some people carry that influences us towards violence.
It was interesting though that the three Buddhist Monks in this clip all tested positive for the Warrior Gene, so it is evident that we can control our human violence impulses with discipline and focus... I enjoyed the response from one of the Monks.... "everyone is born with good and bad traits, that is what makes us human... but everything in life is not set in stone... our future is constantly changing. It is what we do now that will affect our future"
My sense of Buddhism is that violence should be seen as an act of last resort. In that regard, I am not convinced that the US has put anything like the same resources it puts into war into alternatives. Its a bit like the medical system which is focused on remediation, not prevention. Likewise, the US has a defense department but does not have a counterpart department of peace dedicated to preventative and intermediate steps before the last resort.
The justifications for war including the second world war often elide on the preconditions which caused the cancerous growth which then required the corresponding tactical surgery. Arguably, if the appalling conditions that developed in Germany prior to the 1930's been addressed by a more proactive and peace oriented approach, a looney like Hitler may never have got a toe-hold. But in saying this, we can look to the post WWII world and recognise that US interventions have not always been acts of compassion, but selective in terms of its own interests and culturally specific ideological purposes. Moreover, there are numerous regimes which are negative, but there is a surprising lack of interest in ones that have few economic resources.
I am not convinced the US has a model of democracy works and that is not strongly influenced by powerful economic interests both at home and abroad. It also seems to be a difficult topic to broach in the US without falling into a polarising debate. But I am not alone in recognising there is a darkside of capitalism which occurs when it comes into contact with corrupt regimes on foreign shores. It seems that US citizens are unaware of why there is antipathy towards them - and it is easy to be beguiled by plausible excuses or that it just an artifact of their position in the global economy.
But when business is conducted with corrupt regimes, it is not "free" nor a democratic enterprise. For example, I remember reading a gripping account of torture in which torture victim noticed a Made in USA label on equipment used by the perpetrators - sold to the government of a known tyrant. A single example, you may think but there are many more which that much critical reflection is needed around US foreign policy. Before Russia had an undemocratic, repressive and somewhat beligerant communist system and we had a cold war, now it may have a similar capitalist system, but (thankfully) there is no hurry on the part of the US to return to a similar freezing of relations - but we might ponder on why some things are OK under one system and not in another.
The point is the us has always had a vested interest in war, and until it sees that it will not see that it cannot claim moral justification, even if the fight seems totally justifiable - its not an isolated event, but arises out of conditions and circumstances which is where a good Buddhist puts their effort- into removing the causes of war, not the surgery of battle.
Having said that, we need peace minded people in the military too, so good luck!
This is as brilliant a response to 'Buddhism and Violence' as you're ever going to get, KoB. Read, mark and inwardly digest, and dismount from that high horse of self-justification, because violence as you intend it, has no place here. '
That seems a bit condescending. I have not spoken like that to anyone on this thread, so why do you feel the need?
The justifications for war including the second world war often elide on the preconditions which caused the cancerous growth which then required the corresponding tactical surgery. Arguably, if the appalling conditions that developed in Germany prior to the 1930's been addressed by a more proactive and peace oriented approach, a looney like Hitler may never have got a toe-hold. But in saying this, we can look to the post WWII world and recognise that US interventions have not always been acts of compassion, but selective in terms of its own interests and culturally specific ideological purposes.
Of course interventions must always be "selective" due to the limited capabilities of any military to project itself. So one tyrant regime may be overthrown but another left in power, because at that moment it was the best of two bad options. You're right that Hitler should never have been able to achieve his toe-hold. Military intervention in 1937-38 or earlier would have been relatively bloodless compared to the next decade.
The wars in the middle east certainly are predicated on money and power. They are about economic control. Kosovo? There are many opinions. Maybe if one likes being the worlds police man, may be it was a good idea
Maybe if one dislikes genocide, it was a good idea. The slaughter of Bosnian Muslims did not continue after that bit of police work. All the lofty peace conferences and negotiations meant nothing until Milosevic had been bombed into behaving.
As to the Middle East, what economic benefit has the US achieved? There has been no tribute exacted from Iraq (a country enjoying a large oil surplus now), and China has bought up much of the oil contracts. Sorry, but Marx wasn't right that all wars are fought for economic reasons.
From a context outside of buddhism there can be a great debate. But within buddhism the precept against killing does apply to war.
So already the discussion is liken to asking from a buddhist prospective can you can steal property, lie, have sex with married person, and be a drunk.
Then my question is answered. Buddhism cannot condone killing in war in any circumstances. If that is the case, then I can only conclude that Buddhism is an amoral religion.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
The justifications for war including the second world war often elide on the preconditions which caused the cancerous growth which then required the corresponding tactical surgery. Arguably, if the appalling conditions that developed in Germany prior to the 1930's been addressed by a more proactive and peace oriented approach, a looney like Hitler may never have got a toe-hold. But in saying this, we can look to the post WWII world and recognise that US interventions have not always been acts of compassion, but selective in terms of its own interests and culturally specific ideological purposes.
Of course interventions must always be "selective" due to the limited capabilities of any military to project itself. So one tyrant regime may be overthrown but another left in power, because at that moment it was the best of two bad options. You're right that Hitler should never have been able to achieve his toe-hold. Military intervention in 1937-38 or earlier would have been relatively bloodless compared to the next decade.
I think what @DharmaField was saying here is that a non military intervention could have taken place, like an effort to help stabalize the economy. Military shouldn't be the only tool we use.
Then my question is answered. Buddhism cannot condone killing in war in any circumstances. If that is the case, then I can only conclude that Buddhism is an amoral religion.
Or its moral considerations include exsistence beyond this one life and time. Not that you have to believe that but it is a part of Buddhist morality.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Then my question is answered. Buddhism cannot condone killing in war in any circumstances. If that is the case, then I can only conclude that Buddhism is an amoral religion.
I argued this earlier in the thread too. Buddhism isn't a social policy. It advocates for a person to abandon worldly life and become a monk/nun. If thats so then everyone should become one, then we'd all starve and the population would died out, so Buddhism is obviously wrong about the virtue of becoming a monk/nun.
The point is the ethics of Buddhism are of an individual nature, just because I take the role of a pacifist doesn't mean the military is going to disappear.
If I were king of America I think I'd have to keep a military and use it from time to time. Knowing that's the case I can choose a life where I denounce my crown and live a life apart from such decisions.
Buddhism is a religion well known for its teachings about love and compassion. The ultimate goal of a person treading the path of Buddhism is the attainment of perfect iner peace. Buddhism considers war and conflict as evil and teaches how an individual could transcend the universal tendency to engage in conflicts, debates, dispues and wars. The doctrine of the Buddha is such that one who loves in accordance with it succeeds in living in the world without coming into conflict with anyone. The Buddhist path of moral development is described as the noble and incomparable path of peace.
...
And yet, the most Buddhist countries have been just as prone to war as non-Buddhist countries.
KoB, glad there is less confusion for you. Yes you may conclude that buddhism is immoral if you wish. Buddhism is also not evangelical.
There are three levels of study in buddhism. One is to have a happier life. So can a soldier have a happy life? Yes sure. So thus that person could take what they could from buddhism such as meditation. If another buddhist condemns you that is their problem. I recall a Tibetan saying that there are homophobes in buddhism like other religions and cultures, but that the difference is that a buddhist realizes the homophobia belongs to them (a projection) rather than the target. As a said buddhism is not evangelical.
The precept are not judgements rather they are helpers for the practioner. At the level of a practioner aiming for happiness in this life, you can see the fruits for yourself. If you are inclined to be a soldier that will be your life. It's no different from a non-buddhist. But you can't trick karma and if you become ill-tempered, get killed in combat, become arrogant!, and many other possibilities being a buddhist will not shield you. You will not go to heaven like the Christians who take the Lord as savior. Even buddha cannot change your karma. Thus you could be in for a surprise if you become a hell being from the seed of ill-will.
The other motivations are to escape samsara and help all beings escape samsara. For this purpose being a soldier is not a good environment. The best environment is a monastery where you meditate, study, and so forth. This is a mind training environment. The seed of ill-will must be destroyed and thus being a soldier and killing people is not a good environment. My dad is a compassionate person but when he was in vietnam and he shot a gun he hoped to hear screams. Because the enemy was firing back! That is not a good environment for mindtraining.
May all those who are suffering from the weight of anger be comforted and aquire the wisdom to overcome it. Human life is very precious.
From a context outside of buddhism there can be a great debate. But within buddhism the precept against killing does apply to war.
Then my question is answered. Buddhism cannot condone killing in war in any circumstances. If that is the case, then I can only conclude that Buddhism is an amoral religion.
Talk to the Buddhist army chaplain. They have a justification all worked out. When you find out, please let us know what it is.
some more arguments for the case that violence is not helping Afghanistan (surely there must be a better and easier way to contribute something to the world)
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Peace is the most powerful weapon of mankind. It takes more courage to take a blow than give one. It takes more courage to try and talk things through than to start a war.
Mahatma Gandhi
I like this guy. Don't ask me why, but I think he'll go far......
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
Peace is the most powerful weapon of mankind. It takes more courage to take a blow than give one. It takes more courage to try and talk things through than to start a war.
Mahatma Gandhi
I like this guy. Don't ask me why, but I think he'll go far......
Well it doesn't get you very far if you're a Syrian child in a hospital these days. Gandhi's courageous response to British imperialists works...against easily-embarrassed administrators losing their stomach for maintaining a colony. Peacefully demonstrate against Assad or the Mullahs in Tehran? You can expect machine guns. Men like that will maintain that torture police-states until they die, no matter how many peace vigils or "strong denunciations" come from the UN.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Violence can solve the problem of bullies and tyrants. The issue is if in overcoming the problem of violence by violence the conquerer becomes violent themselves and continues the problem. In other words violence can overcome an enemy but it doesn't overcome violence if the victor is also violent.
This has by and large been the pattern of history. In more recent times the US has shown some ability to use violence and step back. When they step back though the people who take power in their place are often the product of violence.
Violence begets more violence. An approach that seeks to educate and empower the people gives them hope for a better future and takes away their will towards violence. In that picture a tyrant can block those efforts and maybe some sort of force that allows an empowering approach is called for. This is a tricky effort though, chaos is much easier to cause than order is to enforce. If order is imposed from outside without the agreement of those upon whom its enacted it isn't that hard to undo.
KOB, over many years now (since I'm getting to be an old codger), the arguments have gone back and forth between those who advocate only peaceful means of conducting international relations, and those who advocate the frequent rule of the gun to conduct international relations. And both sides can point out exceptions to normal events that "prove" their point. The "peace at all cost" folks will drag out the exceptions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, while the hardliners will drag out Hitler and Pearl Harbor. And the problem with their arguments is that they're both right...in certain situations, and they're both wrong in certain situations.
I remember reading that Gandhi never excluded the option of violence. He considered violence as a last resort. He chose peaceful means against the british because he had confidence that the british has a sense of decency that he could appeal to. Remarkably, Gandhi served in the british army, not fighting but carrying off the wounded from the battlefield. I think his views on violence and peaceful means were quite subtle. I don't know much about Martin Luther King, but I imagine his views on peace and violence were subtle too.
So you should not think that the people that agree with Gandhi and Martin Luther King are naively applying a principle of "no violence, no matter what". However, in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan the choice for violence was a tragic mistake (there are no words to describe it, except maybe 'insanity'), and it goes without saying that Gandhi and ML King would never have supported these wars.
You've got it !The timid non-violent ones allow for torture and the eventual extermination of kindness itself.The timid practitioners who follow Thich Nanh Hanh are especially bad with this aspect.They WILL call the police and then consider them ethically below themselves.Yuppie Zen!
Calling Thich Nhat Hanh a yuppie is quite comical. He persevered peacefully in Vietnam during an invasion by both the Vietcong and the anti red-curtain troops. He did not have a nice car, plasma TV, internet connection, computer, nice clothes, rich foods, and so forth.
There is a story of how he was generous with rice and I assume in general. This resulted in him being viewed a leader which is not surprising given that he was a religious figure. As he was viewed a leader people gave him rice back and he acted as a rice bank and performed a role in letting those most needy get what they needed while those with extra giving. Does that sound like a yuppie to you @Anji.. I know you mispoke yourself trying to make a point
Certainly not Thich Nhat Hanh, but some of his followers do reflect a kind of yuppie feel good Zen that allows for a degree of hypocrisy to creep in, as Anji has mentioned --- it's not a criticism of Thay though.
For example, I even commented on this in an editorial on the Buddhist Channel during the time that the Bat Nha incident was occuring, where his followers were protesting their eviction from the monastery:
To quote Thich Nhat Hanh, "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us," so could we not be seeing the same behavior actually being applied by some of Thay's supporters in the events being reported?
There's also the animosity and ill will that was displayed by Thay's supporters when greeting representatives of the Buddhist Church of Vietnam (BCV) who came out to Bat Nhan to investigate their claims of harassment at the beginning of the stand-off.
Maybe this whole situation could have been avoided if they had taken to heart Thay's own words and just quietly surrendered the monastery:
"When we come into contact with the other person, our thoughts and actions should express our mind of compassion, even if that person says and does things that are not easy to accept."
Better yet, maybe they should have seen the whole issue of their residency at Bat Nhan in the light of being impermanent, doing so in accordance with the practice they supposedly have undertaken in the first place.
I once admired Thich a bit more.When he had in past years mentioned absolutely no use of force under any circumstances it seemed that he was selling out. I was at one time with the Community of Mindfulness branch in a yuppie area. Some of those in charge freaked over the fact that I practice defense.May they inhale deeply if attacked. I wish them no harm,they have embraced timidity ! They harm themselves with false practice.One of there leaders and I saw an obviously wounded insect on the floor.As she observed,I mindfully took away the creatures death agony.We looked at each other with a bit of disdain.If I was being raped this woman would have been unable to help me.Her silence would kill kindness itself.All we need is to allow the viscous,greedy nd cruelest to use force unchecked. The love of martial art films,the Japanese belt rank and tournament fighting are not in my practice.They are excluded.This macho practice of martial arts is not mindful,but can become arrogant,and does not train calmness and avoidance.So martial arts practice is not necessarily mindful.Tournament training is also unrealistic. Namaste, Anji
I've noticed the freaking out also. I don't believe it is false practice, but it's regrettable that they freak out. It's regrettable that her silence killed kindness for you, but that sounds like a hyperbole and I'm sure you were just rhetorical.
I am glad you enjoy martial arts. But remember other people may choose non-violence. I think both you and the others mirror each others intolerance and it is unfortunate. These are just my opinions and observations of course; I don't know any of the people you are talking about.
Hopefully, I can state my opinion without this pc hicupping. But, as a cop and a veteran, I have had this delemma almost my entire life. I began my military time as an Air force medic (aug 79/apr83) at USAF Hosp Barksdale S,A.C.; at this time, the cold war was going on, and at ground zero for a nuclear war. I left the Air Force and enlisted into the Army guard and trained as a 13f (forward observer). I'm also a pramedic, A former voulenteer firefighter with exstensive rescue training.
I'm constantly conflicted of this non violent life that is required in Catholocism and Buddhism; but I must also consider another tennent Protect those who cannot protect themselvs. And, using force, and with deadly force must be considered in not as much how, but why; Karma, being bad, if I don't use what tallents I have to protect. :om:
There seems to be two pretty distinct sides on this very long and somewhat troubling thread. What I am mostly hearing is the assertions of why each side is right. In my zen practise, polarized positions are often able to be examined with more flexible eyes when each side expresses where their own side might be wrong. If all sides consider themselves to be practitioners on the path to reduce suffering, if all sides believe that the softening of ones ego is in aid of that, then what better place to practise what we preach instead of just building up of a more righteousness sense of identity.
I am only going to address this part of your quote so I took out the rest.
As to the Middle East, what economic benefit has the US achieved? There has been no tribute exacted from Iraq (a country enjoying a large oil surplus now), and China has bought up much of the oil contracts. Sorry, but Marx wasn't right that all wars are fought for economic reasons.
I think Marx was very right about this. You ask what tribute the U.S. has extracted? If we are discussing Marx then you have to remember that Marx viewed the State as an instrument to carry out the will of the ruling capitalist class. Looking at Iraq, the capitalist class made a lot of money on that war Just to give two examples. Blackwater made a lot of money. Halliburton made an outstanding amount of money off the Iraq War. Based on the Marxist view of the State, that it exists to serve the interests of the ruling class, well the State did its work well in Iraq.
Aside from the debate raging, I'd like to focus on this
it is of paramount importance to come to grips with these issues if I am to maintain a clean conscience.
If your livelihood is soldiery, you won't have a clean conscience, and no amount of rationalisation will prepare you for the suffering that entails for you and those who are or will become close to you. At that point, you will have no choice but to suffer. But, though it will take great courage and endurance to face the hardness of your own mind, you do have a choice now.
Please. Come back from the edge. You will be out of sight if you fall.
The question is not whether one is 'allowed' to go to war, but whether one is allowed to choose not to. Many people love peace in their hearts but their minds have been indoctrinated with the theory of the just war i.e. that it is one's responsibility to fight and that by deciding not to, one is a coward or appeaser of tyrants. It is quite possible to be a pacifist because one is a coward, I do not dispute this, but it is also possible to be a pacifist out of courage.
The example you set by turning the other cheek endures through all time, and the effects of that turning away from hate will still reverberate when the last of today's battlefields are drowned in dust. That it takes courage is because the pacifist may indeed have to sacrifice his or her possessions, pride, country, body and yes, loved ones for the greater good. Pacifism is a terrible, terrible sacrifice, one should not underestimate this. It's why Jesus spoke of dividing man against father, daughter against mother.
In this way, Buddhism is just as jealous a faith as Judaism. There is nothing higher than love undivided, even love divided.
Comments
2) When did Americans 'save' Taiwan?
Are you American? Or live in the States? If so, why? If you believed the country you live in is as wretched as that, why bother staying? I certainly would not want to.
Not everyone has the financial means to just pick up and move.
You live in a strange world different than my own. The world you would have us live in would be filled with far more evil than exists today. War has never solved anything? What history books are you reading? The Civil War lead to the unshackling of slaves (no matter what Lost Causers say), the Allied vanquishing of Nazism meant that the Jews would not be completely exterminated. I would love for you to read "Knights of Bushido" written about the Japanese war crimes in Asia. Have you any idea the torture and cruelty that was inflicted on China and the rest of East Asia? Read and still say war never solves anything, and you deserve a medal.
So are you defending Japan or vilifying it? Defending China or vilifying it?
And why the " " sneer quotes on "free"? Do you see no objective difference in freedom between North and South Korea or Taiwan and China?
Again, how did the USA intervene in the Chinese Civil War that made Taiwan more "free" than China? IIRC, Taiwan was under martial rule until the 80s, and during that time, Taiwan was pretty freaking fascist.
According to Buddhism, the foremost truth abut the human condition is the existence of dukkha. The term dukkha connotes all disappointments, frustrations, discontents, unhappiness as well as the unsatisfactory state of affairs characteristic of the world of mental and physical nature. The persistence of dukkha in all its different forms is dependent on the activity of unwhilesome mental processes referred to in Buddhism as asava (influxes), anusaya (latent evil) and kilesa (psychological defilements). All inner psychological conflicts as well as conflicts produced in society are traced in Buddhism to these psychological causes. All wars, according to the Buddhist view, originate in the minds of people. Buddhist teachings maintain that the mental processes referred to as unskilled or unwholesome (P.akusala) determine the behaviour of the large majority of living beings. Sakkapaiiha Sutta draws attention : Devas, men, Asuras, nagas, Gandhabbas and whatever other different kinds of communities are there, it occurs to them that they ought to live without mutual hatred, violence, enmity and malice. yet for all they live with mutual hatred, violence and malice.
In buddhism canonical mythology, there is reference to two types of celestial beings, one representing the righteous, the devas, and the other representing the unrighteous, the asuras. The 2 groups are mentioned as engaing in war from time to time. Sakka, the most devout Buddhist deity led the battlefront of the devas
against the evil asuras. Somethimes Sakka is represented as ordering the leaders of his armies like Suvlra and Suslma to act vigilantly and effenctively against the aggressive enemy forces. However, in such instances Sakka concedes the fact that the Buddhist goal of nibblina is of much greater worth than the victory over a mundance conflict. Sakka himself advices the combatants on his side that when they are overcome with their fear in the battlefield, confronted by the advancing enemy forces, they should take courage by looking towards the might and glory of Sakka or that of any of the other powerful deities in order to be rid of their fear. The Buddha says that by this means they will not always be rid of their fear because neither Sakka nor any of the other deities is free from lust, hatred and delusion. The Buddha says that his bhikkhu disciples who may be overcome by fear when they battle against the inner foes of the mind meditating in desolate places may look towards the Buddha to be rid of their fear. In this case, they
would indeed succeed.In another instance, the Sakka speaks to the Buddha abut the joys and happiness he experienced by becoming victorious over asuras after engaging them in war. But Sakka says that the joy he experienced then was associated with the victory obtained from violent anned conflict and therefore did not conduce to the Buddhist gaol of liberation. He contrasts that joy with the joy, which is free from any associations with violence that he experienced after listening to the good teaching of the Buddha. That, he says, is joy that
leads to disenchantment with all worldly things and to the ultimate peace of nibblina. Namo Amituofo
War involves violent behaviour on the part of those who directly participate in it, and voilence proceeds from malice and hatred whether it is motivated by the desire to achieve what is conceived as a just cause or not. Therefore the cononical teachings often emphasize the importance of conciliatory methods of resolving conflicts before embarking on war. The ethical teachings of the Dhammapada maintain thatbatred can never be appeased by hatred and that it can only be appeased by non-hatred. Forebearance and non-injury are considered as cardinal virtues of rulers. Buddha himself had intervened in situations where people had thought of resolving their problems through war, and persuaded them to resort to peaceful and conciliatory methods of resolving conflicts, drawing their attention to the intrinsic worth of human lives.
Buddhist connonical accounts highlight the ethical qualities of the righteous party by showing that although they are compelled by circumstances to engage in war for the purpose of self-defence, they do not resort to unnecessary acts of cruelty even towards the defeated. The righteous party in war avoids harm to the innocent and is ready to pardon even the defeated enemy. Skilful methods are adopted in order to cause the least harm. Texts such as the Ummagga Jiitaka illustrate well cases where the enemy could be defeated without injury to and destruction of life.
In several other contexts such as the Kalahavivada Sutta, the buddha explains the psychological origins of such conflict, Conflict is explained in these instances as a consequences of an unenlightened response to one's sensory environment. As long as people lack of insightful understanding of the mechanical nature of the reactions to the sensory environment produced by unwholesome roots of psychological motivation conflict in society cannot be avoided. Buddhism traces conflict in society to certain instinctual responses of people such as the attraction to what is pleasant, the repulsion against what is unpleasant, the pursuit of what gives pleasure, the psychological friction against what produces displeasure, the great desire to protect one;s own possessions, the irritable feeling expereicned when other persona enjoy possessions that one is incapable of acquiring, competing claims on limited resources, ideological disagreements involving dogmatic clinging to one's own view and so on. The selfish pursuit of sense pleasure is considered as the root cause of the conflict. Where there is sympathetic concern, compassion, sharing, charitableness and generosity conflict can be minimised. The latter attitudes, however, are not instinctive. They need to be cultivated through proper reflection and insightful understanding.The only instance in which Buddhist canonical sources speak of victory or conquest through righteousness is where reference is made to the political principles of a cakkavatti who conquers territory not with the force of arms but through principles of morality. The Buddha countered the prevailing belief that soliers of war who fight for a cause could, as a consequence of their rightfful performance of duty, aspire to attain a heavenly rebirth if they succumb to their injuries while in combat. According to the Buddha, one who fights a war does not generate wholesome thoughts but thoughts of malice and hatred, which are absolutely unwholesome (S.IV308). Therefore, their future destiny will be a woedul one, which is in accordance with their unwholesome kamma.
There is no doubt that in the modern civilized world, war r aggression motivated by imperialist and expansionist intentions is subjected to universal condemnation. Similarly deprivation of human rights and oppression of the weak by the strong is also widely open to moral condemnation. However it is to be noted that wach pary currently engaged in war attempts to show that violence is the only alternative availble to achieve what is perceived to be the righteous cause. The point made by the Buddha in this connection is that people are psychologically incapable of forming opinions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous while being immersed in their defiled psychological condition. They may express strng convictions about what is just and right, but when objectively examined they turn out to be mere rationalizations of their pre-conceived notions, desires, cravings, likes and dislikes. When people make decisions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust while they are still affect by the roots of evil, greed, hatred and delusion their judgements are mere rationalization. :thumbsup:
May all be well, be safe and be compassionate for human dignity and world peace. Namo Amituofo
Read, mark and inwardly digest, and dismount from that high horse of self-justification, because violence as you intend it, has no place here.
and before LeonBasin can say it, 'Interesting thread, thanks for sharing!'
it is a requirement to give reference to such material.
It's good material... but is it originally yours?
I'm new to Buddhism and came to this forum specifically looking for a Buddhist discussion on the concept of a "just war”. I found what I was looking for here Several intelligent posters bravely strayed from the precept of Buddhist non violence, saving this from being a bland party line discussion. The views of these posters differ from the majority of the folks here, so I guess it’s to be expected-even in a Buddhist forum- that they might be meet with closed minds. Differing opinions are hard to hear and can be very frustrating, still I was surprised that even the moderator seemed so patronizing and intolerant. This should be the ideal place to have an open discussion about whether war is justified, isn’t that what the topic is?
@teacup Reviewing the OP, I see you're right. More precisely, the topic, I think, is: are the wars the US is in justified. That's a different question from the one you stated.
Is war ever justified? Well, one could stretch the "greater good' principle of the precepts and say: maybe, sometimes. Like stopping the Nazi war and genocide machine. That sounds like a just war. As for the question: are any of the US' current wars justified, I'll leave that to others.
Is this more along the lines of what you were looking for? Welcome, by the way.
You made an earlier post regarding that we are in the middleeast for their oil. Yes and no, not the actual physical oil but an oil currency war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
To the OP to believe that all war is not predicated on money or power is naive.
So already the discussion is liken to asking from a buddhist prospective can you can steal property, lie, have sex with married person, and be a drunk.
Yes you can do all of those things. But buddha did not recommend those things as wise. Still it is better to do only one of them than all five of course.
The incorrigibles do not know the difference between that which helps them and that which harms them. They do harmful things and think it is good. And when they do helpful things they think that is bad. I mean helpful from the perspective of concern for your own and others welfare and learning. They take a long time to become buddhas. Many lifetimes. But the text says that if they can imagine giving an enlightened being a flower, even if they are in the deepest hell, they to may make progress and eventually attain the goal.
Kosovo? There are many opinions. Maybe if one likes being the worlds police man, may be it was a good idea.
In another 11years (God willing if our state of prepetual warfare continues unabated and it most certainly will as terrorism, because its a tactic, will never end) my seven year old be old enough to join and "do his part"
Maybe I'll get a flag as they salute my son's corpse, while shoveling dirt on him.
These perpetual wars have done nothing but enrich corporate interests/the military industrial complex, killed alot of people, have place an inordinant and unsustainable financial burden upon this country and through the (un)patriot act and the NDAA has done nothing but shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One can't have a democracy and a state of prepetual war.
OK, I guess that was a draft that never made it out... not sure where I was going with it, but here's this...
The treaty was replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act, and it does not specifically state that we will defend Taiwan, but it suggests that we could in such language:
"to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
It was interesting though that the three Buddhist Monks in this clip all tested positive for the Warrior Gene, so it is evident that we can control our human violence impulses with discipline and focus... I enjoyed the response from one of the Monks.... "everyone is born with good and bad traits, that is what makes us human... but everything in life is not set in stone... our future is constantly changing. It is what we do now that will affect our future"
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/full-episodes/explorer/ngc-born-to-rage-1/
My sense of Buddhism is that violence should be seen as an act of last resort. In that regard, I am not convinced that the US has put anything like the same resources it puts into war into alternatives. Its a bit like the medical system which is focused on remediation, not prevention. Likewise, the US has a defense department but does not have a counterpart department of peace dedicated to preventative and intermediate steps before the last resort.
The justifications for war including the second world war often elide on the preconditions which caused the cancerous growth which then required the corresponding tactical surgery. Arguably, if the appalling conditions that developed in Germany prior to the 1930's been addressed by a more proactive and peace oriented approach, a looney like Hitler may never have got a toe-hold. But in saying this, we can look to the post WWII world and recognise that US interventions have not always been acts of compassion, but selective in terms of its own interests and culturally specific ideological purposes. Moreover, there are numerous regimes which are negative, but there is a surprising lack of interest in ones that have few economic resources.
I am not convinced the US has a model of democracy works and that is not strongly influenced by powerful economic interests both at home and abroad. It also seems to be a difficult topic to broach in the US without falling into a polarising debate. But I am not alone in recognising there is a darkside of capitalism which occurs when it comes into contact with corrupt regimes on foreign shores. It seems that US citizens are unaware of why there is antipathy towards them - and it is easy to be beguiled by plausible excuses or that it just an artifact of their position in the global economy.
But when business is conducted with corrupt regimes, it is not "free" nor a democratic enterprise. For example, I remember reading a gripping account of torture in which torture victim noticed a Made in USA label on equipment used by the perpetrators - sold to the government of a known tyrant. A single example, you may think but there are many more which that much critical reflection is needed around US foreign policy. Before Russia had an undemocratic, repressive and somewhat beligerant communist system and we had a cold war, now it may have a similar capitalist system, but (thankfully) there is no hurry on the part of the US to return to a similar freezing of relations - but we might ponder on why some things are OK under one system and not in another.
The point is the us has always had a vested interest in war, and until it sees that it will not see that it cannot claim moral justification, even if the fight seems totally justifiable - its not an isolated event, but arises out of conditions and circumstances which is where a good Buddhist puts their effort- into removing the causes of war, not the surgery of battle.
Having said that, we need peace minded people in the military too, so good luck!
As to the Middle East, what economic benefit has the US achieved? There has been no tribute exacted from Iraq (a country enjoying a large oil surplus now), and China has bought up much of the oil contracts. Sorry, but Marx wasn't right that all wars are fought for economic reasons.
The point is the ethics of Buddhism are of an individual nature, just because I take the role of a pacifist doesn't mean the military is going to disappear.
If I were king of America I think I'd have to keep a military and use it from time to time. Knowing that's the case I can choose a life where I denounce my crown and live a life apart from such decisions.
There are three levels of study in buddhism. One is to have a happier life. So can a soldier have a happy life? Yes sure. So thus that person could take what they could from buddhism such as meditation. If another buddhist condemns you that is their problem. I recall a Tibetan saying that there are homophobes in buddhism like other religions and cultures, but that the difference is that a buddhist realizes the homophobia belongs to them (a projection) rather than the target. As a said buddhism is not evangelical.
The precept are not judgements rather they are helpers for the practioner. At the level of a practioner aiming for happiness in this life, you can see the fruits for yourself. If you are inclined to be a soldier that will be your life. It's no different from a non-buddhist. But you can't trick karma and if you become ill-tempered, get killed in combat, become arrogant!, and many other possibilities being a buddhist will not shield you. You will not go to heaven like the Christians who take the Lord as savior. Even buddha cannot change your karma. Thus you could be in for a surprise if you become a hell being from the seed of ill-will.
The other motivations are to escape samsara and help all beings escape samsara. For this purpose being a soldier is not a good environment. The best environment is a monastery where you meditate, study, and so forth. This is a mind training environment. The seed of ill-will must be destroyed and thus being a soldier and killing people is not a good environment. My dad is a compassionate person but when he was in vietnam and he shot a gun he hoped to hear screams. Because the enemy was firing back! That is not a good environment for mindtraining.
May all those who are suffering from the weight of anger be comforted and aquire the wisdom to overcome it. Human life is very precious.
some more arguments for the case that violence is not helping Afghanistan (surely there must be a better and easier way to contribute something to the world)
Truth, lies and Afghanistan (Armed Forces Journal)
Best regards,
Maarten
Peace is the most powerful weapon of mankind. It takes more courage to take a blow than give one. It takes more courage to try and talk things through than to start a war.
Mahatma Gandhi
I like this guy. Don't ask me why, but I think he'll go far......
This has by and large been the pattern of history. In more recent times the US has shown some ability to use violence and step back. When they step back though the people who take power in their place are often the product of violence.
Violence begets more violence. An approach that seeks to educate and empower the people gives them hope for a better future and takes away their will towards violence. In that picture a tyrant can block those efforts and maybe some sort of force that allows an empowering approach is called for. This is a tricky effort though, chaos is much easier to cause than order is to enforce. If order is imposed from outside without the agreement of those upon whom its enacted it isn't that hard to undo.
I remember reading that Gandhi never excluded the option of violence. He considered violence as a last resort. He chose peaceful means against the british because he had confidence that the british has a sense of decency that he could appeal to. Remarkably, Gandhi served in the british army, not fighting but carrying off the wounded from the battlefield. I think his views on violence and peaceful means were quite subtle. I don't know much about Martin Luther King, but I imagine his views on peace and violence were subtle too.
So you should not think that the people that agree with Gandhi and Martin Luther King are naively applying a principle of "no violence, no matter what". However, in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan the choice for violence was a tragic mistake (there are no words to describe it, except maybe 'insanity'), and it goes without saying that Gandhi and ML King would never have supported these wars.
Well for the sake of your own health I hope their response isn't violence, it would be unfortunate if one of them was to take up arms and shoot at you
There is a story of how he was generous with rice and I assume in general. This resulted in him being viewed a leader which is not surprising given that he was a religious figure. As he was viewed a leader people gave him rice back and he acted as a rice bank and performed a role in letting those most needy get what they needed while those with extra giving. Does that sound like a yuppie to you @Anji.. I know you mispoke yourself trying to make a point
For example, I even commented on this in an editorial on the Buddhist Channel during the time that the Bat Nha incident was occuring, where his followers were protesting their eviction from the monastery:
To quote Thich Nhat Hanh, "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us," so could we not be seeing the same behavior actually being applied by some of Thay's supporters in the events being reported?
There's also the animosity and ill will that was displayed by Thay's supporters when greeting representatives of the Buddhist Church of Vietnam (BCV) who came out to Bat Nhan to investigate their claims of harassment at the beginning of the stand-off.
Maybe this whole situation could have been avoided if they had taken to heart Thay's own words and just quietly surrendered the monastery:
"When we come into contact with the other person, our thoughts and actions should express our mind of compassion, even if that person says and does things that are not easy to accept."
Better yet, maybe they should have seen the whole issue of their residency at Bat Nhan in the light of being impermanent, doing so in accordance with the practice they supposedly have undertaken in the first place.
The love of martial art films,the Japanese belt rank and tournament fighting are not in my practice.They are excluded.This macho practice of martial arts is not mindful,but can become arrogant,and does not train calmness and avoidance.So martial arts practice is not necessarily mindful.Tournament training is also unrealistic.
Namaste,
Anji
I am glad you enjoy martial arts. But remember other people may choose non-violence. I think both you and the others mirror each others intolerance and it is unfortunate. These are just my opinions and observations of course; I don't know any of the people you are talking about.
I'm constantly conflicted of this non violent life that is required in Catholocism and Buddhism; but I must also consider another tennent Protect those who cannot protect themselvs. And, using force, and with deadly force must be considered in not as much how, but why; Karma, being bad, if I don't use what tallents I have to protect. :om:
There seems to be two pretty distinct sides on this very long and somewhat troubling thread.
What I am mostly hearing is the assertions of why each side is right.
In my zen practise, polarized positions are often able to be examined with more flexible eyes when each side expresses where their own side might be wrong. If all sides consider themselves to be practitioners on the path to reduce suffering, if all sides believe that the softening of ones ego is in aid of that, then what better place to practise what we preach instead of just building up of a more righteousness sense of identity.
Just a hope..
[Post 'tidied up' by Moderator]
Aside from the debate raging, I'd like to focus on this If your livelihood is soldiery, you won't have a clean conscience, and no amount of rationalisation will prepare you for the suffering that entails for you and those who are or will become close to you. At that point, you will have no choice but to suffer. But, though it will take great courage and endurance to face the hardness of your own mind, you do have a choice now.
Please. Come back from the edge. You will be out of sight if you fall.
The example you set by turning the other cheek endures through all time, and the effects of that turning away from hate will still reverberate when the last of today's battlefields are drowned in dust. That it takes courage is because the pacifist may indeed have to sacrifice his or her possessions, pride, country, body and yes, loved ones for the greater good. Pacifism is a terrible, terrible sacrifice, one should not underestimate this. It's why Jesus spoke of dividing man against father, daughter against mother.
In this way, Buddhism is just as jealous a faith as Judaism. There is nothing higher than love undivided, even love divided.