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.
Every day that I live in a free country I have benefited from the military. Every time I use my right to free speech I have benefited from the military. Every time I practice the religion of my choosing I have benefited from the military.
It was the military who fought for those rights and freedoms against oppressors and those who would take them away from us.
I value freedom, and so I value the military, and I benefit from them always.
We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. Dwight D. Eisenhower
'Free' is such a relative term - you feel free because you perceive you are able to live your life within accepted parameters - you consider those parameters as universal absolutes and, as there is no alternative to compare it to, consider that it is an achieved absolute.
Freedom of speech (just watch what you say...)!! When you support the status quo, you have no issue with freedom of speech.
There isn't an example of religion being outlawed for religion's sake - it is the political potential of people gathered around a common theme (in the case of religion, somewhat fervently) that puts religion at odds with politics - how would you know what religion I practice if I dont tell you? in which case how could you stop me practicing it?
History is written by the winners - 'fear' is effectively employed to ensure 'oppressors' exist - you are convinced that your survival chances are diminished - you react to protect your position - you allow others to react and protect your position on your behalf - you are now detached from the consequences of your action and far from realising that you are in fact harming yourself.
D Eisenhower - former top general in the US army, commander of forces in Europe, Nato head honcho... interesting man, interesting legacy.
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Mahatma Ghandi
As with all of us, you have predisposed biased view.
If by predisposition you mean that I have researched and considered a wide variety of sources (religious, scientific, philisophical, artistic) and have an opinion based on my ponderings then yes - predisposed indeed - but the alternative to that is opinion with no basis whatsoever in any objective standard - nothing wrong with that - not ideal for debating with others (if that is the aim).
If however by predisposition you consider that my views are crystallised before, during and after the debate then no - even as I type this, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues and to learn.
Not sure where you are going with 'biased' - where is the unfair prejudice? one cannot accurately be classed as being biased for having an opinion within the context of a debate!
If 'enlightenment' (by dictionary definition) is the attainment of knowledge / insight / wisdom then the state of enlightened beings is the practical application (living) of that (enlightenment).
I hear a lot of debate on what is or is not a valid enlightenment / what happens after you die / karma / what buddha may or may not have said, looked like and why - endless imponderables - but when a practical issue falls to our laps, how quickly we say 'we are just animals', 'it is natural', 'its the lesser of evils'... etc etc... in considering an ideal you are straying into the path of thinking-not-as-a-human-might - you may even implement it and live not-as-a-human-might - you're still a human though so you are in fact exploring human potential - the potential of this particular intellect realisable in this lifetime, now.
Every day that I live in a free country I have benefited from the military. Every time I use my right to free speech I have benefited from the military. Every time I practice the religion of my choosing I have benefited from the military.
It was the military who fought for those rights and freedoms against oppressors and those who would take them away from us.
I value freedom, and so I value the military, and I benefit from them always.
We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. Dwight D. Eisenhower
'Free' is such a relative term - you feel free because you perceive you are able to live your life within accepted parameters - you consider those parameters as universal absolutes and, as there is no alternative to compare it to, consider that it is an achieved absolute.
No, it means I won't be punished by the law for expressing my views, and I am given forums in which to express them if I so choose.
Freedom of speech (just watch what you say...)!! When you support the status quo, you have no issue with freedom of speech.
No, it means I don't have to support the status quo and I can do so without fear of reprimand from the law.
There isn't an example of religion being outlawed for religion's sake - it is the political potential of people gathered around a common theme (in the case of religion, somewhat fervently) that puts religion at odds with politics - how would you know what religion I practice if I dont tell you? in which case how could you stop me practicing it?
You should read the recent history of Iran and the enforcement of sharia law in the middle east.
History is written by the winners - 'fear' is effectively employed to ensure 'oppressors' exist - you are convinced that your survival chances are diminished - you react to protect your position - you allow others to react and protect your position on your behalf - you are now detached from the consequences of your action and far from realising that you are in fact harming yourself.
Irrational wishful thinking. If you think there aren't bad people in the world with bad intentions you're living in la la land. This entire argument is just nonsense. You've completely misapplied a psychological construct to a broad political conspiracy theory.
D Eisenhower - former top general in the US army, commander of forces in Europe, Nato head honcho... interesting man, interesting legacy.
Five star general and excellent leader, and yes, very interesting!
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Mahatma Ghandi
Gandhi was awesome, no mistake about it, and in a very broad sense he is correct, however, that level of enlightenment can not always be applied to the linear world of form. Simply because it doesn't make sense. You've got the context wrong.
As with all of us, you have predisposed biased view.
If by predisposition you mean that I have researched and considered a wide variety of sources (religious, scientific, philisophical, artistic) and have an opinion based on my ponderings then yes - predisposed indeed - but the alternative to that is opinion with no basis whatsoever in any objective standard - nothing wrong with that - not ideal for debating with others (if that is the aim).
You're entitled to your own opinion and to draw your own conclusions. That's totally cool. Opinions are pretty worthless though - they change from person to person and their only real value is how much truth there is in them, if there is any at all.
If however by predisposition you consider that my views are crystallised before, during and after the debate then no - even as I type this, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues and to learn.
Not sure where you are going with 'biased' - where is the unfair prejudice? one cannot accurately be classed as being biased for having an opinion within the context of a debate!
No, but you probably came to this debate (like all of us did) with the idea that your viewpoint is the correct one. I don't think Vinlyn was accusing you of anything, just reminding all of us that we do have our own biases.
If 'enlightenment' (by dictionary definition) is the attainment of knowledge / insight / wisdom then the state of enlightened beings is the practical application (living) of that (enlightenment).
I hear a lot of debate on what is or is not a valid enlightenment / what happens after you die / karma / what buddha may or may not have said, looked like and why - endless imponderables - but when a practical issue falls to our laps, how quickly we say 'we are just animals', 'it is natural', 'its the lesser of evils'... etc etc... in considering an ideal you are straying into the path of thinking-not-as-a-human-might - you may even implement it and live not-as-a-human-might - you're still a human though so you are in fact exploring human potential - the potential of this particular intellect realisable in this lifetime, now.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say here...
'Free' is such a relative term - you feel free because you perceive you are able to live your life within accepted parameters - you consider those parameters as universal absolutes and, as there is no alternative to compare it to, consider that it is an achieved absolute.
Freedom of speech (just watch what you say...)!! When you support the status quo, you have no issue with freedom of speech.
There isn't an example of religion being outlawed for religion's sake - it is the political potential of people gathered around a common theme (in the case of religion, somewhat fervently) that puts religion at odds with politics - how would you know what religion I practice if I dont tell you? in which case how could you stop me practicing it?
...
Having lived in a foreign country for a couple of years. I guess I'd refute much of what you say. Because I think you are confusing the difference between a right that you have or don't have, and having your right freely accepted or criticized by those around you. There's a tremendous difference.
For example, when I was living in Thailand, the Thais were petrified of being in a conversation that even hinted at a criticism of a member of the royal family, and to a lesser extent members of the military or police. And indeed, there are quite a few Thais an foreign nationals who are in Thai prisons today for saying something merely disrespectful. And it is a weapon frequently used in political spats -- just say someone said something disrespectful. On the other hand, short of an actual threat, I can say anything disrespectful about the president of the United States. No problem. I may say something that others disagree with or criticize me for, perhaps even vehemently, but I won't be taken away in the middle of night and put in a cell.
Go to Thailand and see what the average Thai Muslim says about freedom of religion (which they supposedly have) in Thailand. Ask them about the many men, for example, who is a Muslim town were locked into tractor trailer trucks for hours in 100 degree plus tropical heat and died from smothering. They were just suspected of having weapons hidden...no trial...no sentence...just left to die. Or talk to the families of the several hundred protesters during one of the coups who simply disappeared forever...a mystery never solved. I haven't really things like that in my lifetime in the United States...that wasn't eventually solved and dealt with.
And Thailand is by far not the worst country in the world in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
@vinlyn - the system of thai government is less stable than that of US, for a major part, as Thai is per head less affluent than the US - its position on the world stage is also different. The effect of 'criticism' as proposed is vastly different in US and Thai systems of governance - however the state response is the same in both, you must follow the proper channels or face sanction - the channels and the sanctions vary depending on many factors - it is within these parameters that freedom is expressed.
I haven't really [seen] things like that in my lifetime in the United States...that wasn't eventually solved and dealt with.
The Lord Buddha stated that you could fight to protect the innocent.look up king virtuous in the nirvana sutra.
Peace and Love also in the majjhima nikaya the Lord Buddha states that this one Buddhist kingdom cannot be beaten cause they are united and follow the dharma.
The Lord Buddha stated that you could fight to protect the innocent.
He was addressing humans 2,500 years ago - a baby is born sh1tting - it is provided with a nappy until it is old enough to be trained where the sh1t should go - eventually it can regulate the procedure itself - what a day it will be when we no longer need to refer back to what the Lord Buddha may or may not have said...the day when we can regulate ourselves.
Join the military, but keep your Buddhist practice.
But joining the military means you may have to take life, and as a Buddhist one presumably signs up to the first precept ( not taking life ). So there is a conflict. I don't see how this is an example of the middle way.
Everyone has to make his/her own decision, but as a Buddhist who joined the military, I can say with certainty that I strongly wish I had not done it. There are tons of careers in life that are satisfying, enjoyable, and don't have the primary focus of designing technology to blow other humans to bits (speaking to myself, here). It was a cop-out; I tried to tell myself it didn't matter, since I wasn't a ground troop, but of course that was ridiculous.
The military is for killing; being an ambassador, or mediator, or something to that effect, also allows you to defend your country but via non-violent methods. Being a chaplain or medic still contributes to the war machine, but at least you're actively helping beings, instead of actively blowing them up.
The problem is that we mix military service up with "defense." Everyone has a right to defend him/herself, and that probably extends to true national defense--a Canadian border guard, for example. Where, interestingly enough, you would NOT be allowed to shoot on sight but instead must process the suspect according to rule of law.
But our military now (especially post-Bush) is all about preemptive defense--in other words, offense. Even in its most honorable moments, it's hard to justify participating, but certainly today, I don't see it is (very) possible.
I don't mean you shouldn't do it, just that you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking there's ever a completely ethical way (by Buddhist standards) to participate in an organization which spends so much effort designing and implementing ways to end other humans' lives.
It's also worth pointing out that when we delude ourselves into thinking we are helping our country by serving, we may not be - "protecting" American from the non-threat of the bogus "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (no such organization existed before the war) has only made Americans less safe, not more, and cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives.
Military participation has eroded America's defenses, not strengthened them; we cannot trust that our military supervisors and commanders are making decisions which truly have America's logical best-interests at heart; they are sadly not that far-sighted, or are not allowed to be--generally they're reacting to ever-changing mandates from above which are extremely short-term and self-serving, as opposed to long-term and peace-serving.
Join the military, but keep your Buddhist practice.
But joining the military means you may have to take life, and as a Buddhist one presumably signs up to the first precept ( not taking life ). So there is a conflict. I don't see how this is an example of the middle way.
But the Buddha also said defense is fine.
If you're joining the military with the intent of defending your country I don't see a conflict. On a personal level, when you don't know which path is the right one, I find that doing a bit of both allows me to make an informed decision. I think you're only required to do two years after training in the UK, so you do those two years and if you find that it isn't what you want you can just leave.
It doesn't have to be this big Sophie's choice between the military and Buddhism.
But our military now (especially post-Bush) is all about preemptive defense--in other words, offense. Even in its most honorable moments, it's hard to justify participating, but certainly today, I don't see it is (very) possible.
Pre-emptive warfare is a completely legitimate means of defense. You don't wait for the poisonous snake to bite you before you kick it out of the house. You know it's going to bite you, so you remove the threat before it has a chance to do so.
It's also worth pointing out that when we delude ourselves into thinking we are helping our country by serving, we may not be - "protecting" American from the non-threat of the bogus "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (no such organization existed before the war)
The problem is that by joining, you give up your right to decide when you personally are going to kill in defense, or in offense.
It's very hard to make a case for preemptive defense, in any situation. In the US, at least, you cannot legally take preemptive action in your own defense by harming someone else. That gives us a good indication that "defense" is actually different from offense; defense generally has to come in reaction to specific, imminent aggression. The law (and Buddhism) generally give the imminence factor the greatest analysis--was the gun to your head at the moment you struck? Was the gunman walking away, but still turning and looking at you? Had the gunman just shot someone else, and was now moving your way?
Buddhist ethical standards, likewise, do not accept preemptive defense as a reality. Both the law and Buddhist standards, though, would take into consideration the person's feelings of fear and peril when judging that person's offensive actions; but those actions would nonetheless be judged as offensive, not defensive.
People who are taking offensive action should have the guts to say so, and not be ashamed if they feel its the right thing to do. But calling it "preemptive defense" is a misnomer. Better to just come right out and say, "I felt offensive action was necessary," and accept the consequences.
Domestically, killing a neighbor you consider dangerous is called "murder." On foreign soil, killing a neighbor you consider dangerous used to be called "offense;" it is now called "preemptive defense." The difference in domestic and military ethics is one of the oldest questions of human ethics in general, I believe
I didn't mean there's no such thing as genuine service--even generals argue over which wars and actions were wise, and which were folly.
I meant the "Al-Quaida didn't t exist" thing.
It's very hard to make a case for preemptive defense, in any situation. In the US, at least, you cannot legally take preemptive action in your own defense by harming someone else. That gives us a good indication that "defense" is actually different from offense; defense generally has to come in reaction to specific, imminent aggression. The law (and Buddhism) generally give the imminence factor the greatest analysis--was the gun to your head at the moment you struck? Was the gunman walking away, but still turning and looking at you? Had the gunman just shot someone else, and was now moving your way?
True, those are factors, but look at castle law states. You can shoot a man upon unlawfully entering your home because you're allowed the assumption that if he's there without your permission he's there to do something harmful to you or your family - be that steal, physically harm you or whatever.
But, you're not allowed to shoot him in the back, the idea being that if he's leaving the threat has gone.
It's all about eliminating a threat before it can cause the harm it has promised.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) didn't exist before the war. Now it's used as a catch-all for many, disparate groups. Al-Qaeda certainly existed, though it, too, is too-often used as a catch-all. In some cases a much different organization (the Muslim Brotherhood, private Saudi parties, etc.) have been responsible for crimes, but it's easier to just call it "Al-Qaeda."
The problem isn't in eliminating a known threat, but proving that it was a threat. In the case of justifying defensive action (domestically), one must prove it was an imminent thread. For me, personally, that's the most interesting part to discussions on this topic--what is "imminence?" How is it defined by various legal systems and nations?
Domestic law is incredibly conservative on what may be defined as defense; the current military definition wouldn't make the cut. I think these multiple standards are interesting and topic-worthy.
The problem is that by joining, you give up your right to decide when you personally are going to kill in defense, or in offense.
It's very hard to make a case for preemptive defense, in any situation.
...
Yes, choosing to be in the military does require that you give up your right to decide what you do, which perhaps takes away the personal intent factor. And I see this little dilemma as not unlike the one we Buddhists "pretend" about monks eating meat not actually killed by them.
It is very hard for you to make a case for preemptive defense. Many of us have gotten way beyond that.
Domestic law is incredibly conservative on what may be defined as defense; the current military definition wouldn't make the cut. I think these multiple standards are interesting and topic-worthy.
I should add that I'm not ashamed of my military service - just that I know I participated against my beliefs, as opposed to fully believing in what I was doing. I tried to lie to myself that it was "okay," by my own beliefs, which it was not. At the very least I could have done what it took to be a chaplain or medic, instead of just mostly-mindlessly letting myself get carried along into another AFSC. Mostly it's the mindlessness in general I regret; I wish I'd made more deliberate choices.
The military-minded, though, have other options, too--you may scoff, but I believe very strongly in the intelligence community which, when doing what it's supposed to, is working to prevent wars more than start them. There are a host of ways to defend ones nation.
I should add that I'm not ashamed of my military service - just that I know I participated against my beliefs, as opposed to fully believing in what I was doing. I tried to lie to myself that it was "okay," by my own beliefs, which it was not. At the very least I could have done what it took to be a chaplain or medic, instead of just mostly-mindlessly letting myself get carried along into another AFSC. Mostly it's the mindlessness in general I regret; I wish I'd made more deliberate choices.
I'm sorry to hear that, but along with Telly03, thank you for your service.
The military-minded, though, have other options, too--you may scoff, but I believe very strongly in the intelligence community which, when doing what it's supposed to, is working to prevent wars more than start them. There are a host of ways to defend ones nation.
Totally agree. We should utilize every resource at our disposal to prevent war wherever possible.
Totally agree. We should utilize every resource at our disposal to prevent war wherever possible.
Amen... being anti war, yet supportive to our military can be a tough line to walk, but I understand and appreciate the compassion it takes to straddle that line.
A sutta quote or reference would be appreciated, as this isn't something I've come across. The first precept seems pretty clear to me, it doesn't say "it's OK to kill in specific circumstances."
Everyone has to make his/her own decision, but as a Buddhist who joined the military, I can say with certainty that I strongly wish I had not done it.
In my pre-Buddhist days I spent a couple of years as an army machine-gunner. Fortunately it was a reserve unit and not too difficult to leave when I thought better of it.
Leaving aside the choice of one individual. If one accepts that armed forces are a necessary evil, would it not be better if there were more Buddhists in them? Would it reduce the likelihood of 'police actions' turning into atrocities? I'm not sure but would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Leaving aside the choice of one individual. If one accepts that armed forces are a necessary evil, would it not be better if there were more Buddhists in them? Would it reduce the likelihood of 'police actions' turning into atrocities? I'm not sure but would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
That's a great question, @BigD, very similar in my mind to the question of "constructive engagement."
I think it would increase the likelihood of soldiers not following orders, lol
But jokes aside, it's a great question. If the military itself became more compassionate, would that be a good thing?
Do you try to change the world by ordering veggie-burgers from Burger King, to try and influence the big guys, or do you avoid factory farming businesses altogether and support your local co-op? I ask myself that all the time. When I'm on the road and hungry, I swing into a Burger King in hopes that those BK Veggie orders do some good.
For me, it's all body count--do fewer people/animals suffer if I make Decision A or B?
Not knowing the answer, my gut instinct is to avoid Burger Kings and the military; I personally feel better supporting the co-op and working a job which I think contributes to peace, as opposed to a job that inflicts death when peace has failed. But I admit I don't know--if someone told me tomorrow that more Buddhists in the military would contribute significantly to world peace, I would consider it an option.
Then we get into the territory where we are expecting certain Buddhists to violate their vows of non-killing, by joining the military, hopefully to contribute overall to what we is less killing.
I think Buddhism is pretty clear that killing is never, truly wise except in the actual moment of individual self-defense.
This is a pretty thought-provoking tenet. It means that even if you feel strongly a man is going to get up tomorrow morning and shoot someone, you can't stop him ahead of time (interestingly, this is what the laws of most nations dictate as well).
It doesn't mean we have to accept it, but if we're Buddhist, we have to be honest about what this tenet does and doesn't mean. I do think it's interesting that the Buddhist tenet against killing very closely mirrors the law of most lands--that's compelling, as well.
It means that the military is an exception, and we should ask why, and whether it's logical.
I always understood that even in the case of self-defense, killing was still not allowed. I did find this when looking. Written by Thanissaro Bhikku on accesstoinsight:
When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,
"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
— MN 21
When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all. This is because this sort of unconditional promise is a powerful gift.
A sutta quote or reference would be appreciated, as this isn't something I've come across. The first precept seems pretty clear to me, it doesn't say "it's OK to kill in specific circumstances."
Porpoise, I don't know what your position is on what I'm going to say, so this is not directed specifically at you, but it came to mind as I read your post.
It seems that when it comes to anti-war reasoning, quite a few of our members immediately point to the Precepts.
But then, when they're talking about drinking or drug use or some other Precepts that one would come across in everyday life, they mention that the Precepts are "just" guidelines, apparently not to be taken too seriously.
Leaving aside the choice of one individual. If one accepts that armed forces are a necessary evil, would it not be better if there were more Buddhists in them? Would it reduce the likelihood of 'police actions' turning into atrocities? I'm not sure but would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Well, the Thai army is nearly 100% Buddhist, and...
@vinlyn, I think it's mainly because the "non-killing" is generally considered one of (probably the) most important. Taking a life--your own, someone else's--incurs much more negative karma than taking a drug. Buddhism is no different than any other religion (or law of the land) in this respect. Taking a precept or vow isn't for the purpose of satisfying a higher authority, right? It's just a way to try and strengthen our commitment to avoiding a certain action, for our own benefit in not incurring negative karma (and usually therefore for others' benefit).
^^ If one is going to use the 5 basic Precepts as an argument for no military action, then there one can't really say, "But oh, those other Precepts don't matter."
You can use other justifications, but I don't see picking one Precept you like and ignoring others is a very valid justification for anything.
^^ If one is going to use the 5 basic Precepts as an argument for no military action, then there one can't really say, "But oh, those other Precepts don't matter."
You can use other justifications, but I don't see picking one Precept you like and ignoring others is a very valid justification for anything.
Others may, of course, disagree.
Definitely not advocating people break any precepts they have taken - just that I think some are truly weighted more heavily than others.
Interestingly, when I took refuge, my Geshe said he was only giving us one vow ("You can always add more later!"): Be kind.
^^ If one is going to use the 5 basic Precepts as an argument for no military action, then there one can't really say, "But oh, those other Precepts don't matter."
You can use other justifications, but I don't see picking one Precept you like and ignoring others is a very valid justification for anything.
Others may, of course, disagree.
Definitely not advocating people break any precepts they have taken - just that I think some are truly weighted more heavily than others.
Interestingly, when I took refuge, my Geshe said he was only giving us one vow ("You can always add more later!"): Be kind.
It covers a lot.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death", rather than someone who says, "I don't believe in supporting the military due to the Buddhist Precept against killing; now let's go have a beer."
I guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death",
If we didn't have a military there would be a lot more death though...
guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death", rather than someone who says, "I don't believe in supporting the military due to the Buddhist Precept against killing; now let's go have a beer."
Absolutely - me, too.
And the way I phrased it, "some are weighted more heavily than others," betrays my Christian upbringing I suppose--the idea that someone is out there "weighing," or even just that it's our fellow Buddhists "weighing" our actions--the only weight is that which is inherent to the action. If you take a drink, the negative karma weighs this much; if you take a life, the negative karma weighs that much. Just karmic physics.
guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death", rather than someone who says, "I don't believe in supporting the military due to the Buddhist Precept against killing; now let's go have a beer."
Absolutely - me, too.
And the way I phrased it, "some are weighted more heavily than others," betrays my Christian upbringing I suppose--the idea that someone is out there "weighing," or even just that it's our fellow Buddhists "weighing" our actions--the only weight is that which is inherent to the action. If you take a drink, the negative karma weighs this much; if you take a life, the negative karma weighs that much. Just karmic physics.
I agree, although some would disagree because of difference of how people look at what karma actually is.
I guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death",
If we didn't have a military there would be a lot more death though...
Personally, I agree, although I know others do not.
I always understood that even in the case of self-defense, killing was still not allowed.
My view of Buddhism, which I admit I'm just beginning to learn, is that unless your a Monk, there are no rules to limit what is allowed, just a guide to end suffering on your path to enlightenment, in this or future lives.
I would hate to hear someone say that eating meat is killing, which is not allowed, so hand in your Buddhism card and come back when you are ready to be serious. Buddhism would die out so quickly if this was the case. Everyone has their own path and their own realizations as they learn... Military service may be a block in the path for some, and it is up to them to learn this and move past it when the time is right to do so, but it may not be a block in everyone's path.
So I wouldn't get too hung up on what the right answer is unless it is something you are currently working on for yourself.
of all the jobs in the world , why choose to be a soldier? there will be endless arguments about the pros and cons of being a soldier. my advice, dont be a soldier. if you like engineering , be an engineer.
I myself am thinking of joining the Royal Navy as a weapons engineer, does this not conflict with Buddhist ideals? Can I not be a Buddhist if this is the career path I've chosen?
@Telly03 That is true, saying it's "not allowed" was a poor choice in words on my part. I just meant it's never been labeled as "ok" in anything I've ever seen or read, or been able to find in looking it up today.
I personally do think some precepts are more important than others. I'm not justifying anything, as I haven't taken any precepts at this point. But really it's the same if you look at most sets of rules. Take for example the 10 commandments. Most people are going to agree that "taking the name of God in vain" is less important in the grand scheme of things, than taking a life. Doesn't make it a-okay to do, but I certainly think some guidelines are more important than others. Clearly even something that seems so simple as "don't harm any being" is not nearly as simple as it sounds. None of the precepts are really as simple as they look, especially in today's world. I think everyone has to decide what the precepts mean to them, and I think most people if they stick with Buddhism find their views on such things constantly evolving. I haven't even been studying it that long, a matter of months really, and my views on certain things have already changed.
But as is said in the quote I used above, once you make those promises to yourself, they are meant to be meaningful, powerful promises. I don't intend to ever take the Precepts and cross my fingers behind my back when it comes to ones I don't entirely agree with. I don't intend to make those promises until I know where I stand with myself on them. But, just because I haven't taken the precepts doesn't mean I can't use them in discussion, and it doesn't mean I can't have a differing opinion of them based on my currently limited understanding. Engaging with others on their understanding is one of the ways that helps me further develop mine. It's not a bad thing.
Mahaparinirvana sutra chapt king virtuos fights to protect the innocent giving up his life in the fight and being rebOrn into the pureland thats one.ill look up anouther fron digha nikaya an majjhima nikaya.
Largely because I want a better idea of what I'm undertaking before I do, and partially because I want to do it with a teacher (yes, I know you don't have to but it is what I want to do) and my location makes that very difficult. I mostly know what the precepts mean to me, but there are a couple sticking points I'm working through (within me, not a problem with the precepts themselves)
I guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death", rather than someone who says, "I don't believe in supporting the military due to the Buddhist Precept against killing; now let's go have a beer."
As much as some people here dislike Alan Watts, i do find his view on the precepts interesting:
... Third--this is usually translated 'not to commit adultry'. It doesn't say anything of the kind. In Sanskrit, it means 'I undertake the precept to abstain from exploiting my passions.' ... The final precept is a very complicated one, and nobody's quite sure exactly what it means. It mentions three kinds of drugs and drinks: sura, mariya[?], maja[?]. We don't know what they are. But at any rate, it's generally classed as narcotics and liquors. Now, there are two ways of translating this precept. One says to abstain from narcotics and liquors; the other liberal translation favored by the great scholar Dr [?] is 'I abstain from being intoxicated by these things.'...
If we didn't have a military there would be a lot more death though...
Hmmm. What if there was a war and nobody turned up?
Wonderful in theory, terribly unlikely in reality. If there was a war, it's because someone initiated a hostile attack, so at least that side is going to show up, leaving all of the innocent people on the other side to be annihilated. (More loss of life, plus loss of freedom and loss of liberty).
Leaving aside the choice of one individual. If one accepts that armed forces are a necessary evil, would it not be better if there were more Buddhists in them? Would it reduce the likelihood of 'police actions' turning into atrocities? I'm not sure but would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
That would be an idelistic military; it would be one of compassion and sent to defend the most vulnerable. But, unfortunatly we live in a world where such a military opponent won't exist.
Leaving aside the choice of one individual. If one accepts that armed forces are a necessary evil, would it not be better if there were more Buddhists in them? Would it reduce the likelihood of 'police actions' turning into atrocities? I'm not sure but would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
That would be an idelistic military; it would be one of compassion and sent to defend the most vulnerable. But, unfortunatly we live in a world where such a military opponent won't exist.
Armies with vast majorities of Buddhists (Thai, Khmer, Burmese) have historically been no "nicer" than any other armies in the world.
The idea that that might be so is just one more "my religion is better than your religion" tack. Human nature and history trumps religion in this particular case. And if I'm wrong, show me the example. You say Hitler, I'll say Pol Pot.
Comments
Freedom of speech (just watch what you say...)!! When you support the status quo, you have no issue with freedom of speech.
There isn't an example of religion being outlawed for religion's sake - it is the political potential of people gathered around a common theme (in the case of religion, somewhat fervently) that puts religion at odds with politics - how would you know what religion I practice if I dont tell you? in which case how could you stop me practicing it?
History is written by the winners - 'fear' is effectively employed to ensure 'oppressors' exist - you are convinced that your survival chances are diminished - you react to protect your position - you allow others to react and protect your position on your behalf - you are now detached from the consequences of your action and far from realising that you are in fact harming yourself.
D Eisenhower - former top general in the US army, commander of forces in Europe, Nato head honcho... interesting man, interesting legacy.
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Mahatma Ghandi If by predisposition you mean that I have researched and considered a wide variety of sources (religious, scientific, philisophical, artistic) and have an opinion based on my ponderings then yes - predisposed indeed - but the alternative to that is opinion with no basis whatsoever in any objective standard - nothing wrong with that - not ideal for debating with others (if that is the aim).
If however by predisposition you consider that my views are crystallised before, during and after the debate then no - even as I type this, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues and to learn.
Not sure where you are going with 'biased' - where is the unfair prejudice? one cannot accurately be classed as being biased for having an opinion within the context of a debate!
If 'enlightenment' (by dictionary definition) is the attainment of knowledge / insight / wisdom then the state of enlightened beings is the practical application (living) of that (enlightenment).
I hear a lot of debate on what is or is not a valid enlightenment / what happens after you die / karma / what buddha may or may not have said, looked like and why - endless imponderables - but when a practical issue falls to our laps, how quickly we say 'we are just animals', 'it is natural', 'its the lesser of evils'... etc etc... in considering an ideal you are straying into the path of thinking-not-as-a-human-might - you may even implement it and live not-as-a-human-might - you're still a human though so you are in fact exploring human potential - the potential of this particular intellect realisable in this lifetime, now.
For example, when I was living in Thailand, the Thais were petrified of being in a conversation that even hinted at a criticism of a member of the royal family, and to a lesser extent members of the military or police. And indeed, there are quite a few Thais an foreign nationals who are in Thai prisons today for saying something merely disrespectful. And it is a weapon frequently used in political spats -- just say someone said something disrespectful. On the other hand, short of an actual threat, I can say anything disrespectful about the president of the United States. No problem. I may say something that others disagree with or criticize me for, perhaps even vehemently, but I won't be taken away in the middle of night and put in a cell.
Go to Thailand and see what the average Thai Muslim says about freedom of religion (which they supposedly have) in Thailand. Ask them about the many men, for example, who is a Muslim town were locked into tractor trailer trucks for hours in 100 degree plus tropical heat and died from smothering. They were just suspected of having weapons hidden...no trial...no sentence...just left to die. Or talk to the families of the several hundred protesters during one of the coups who simply disappeared forever...a mystery never solved. I haven't really things like that in my lifetime in the United States...that wasn't eventually solved and dealt with.
And Thailand is by far not the worst country in the world in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The effect of 'criticism' as proposed is vastly different in US and Thai systems of governance - however the state response is the same in both, you must follow the proper channels or face sanction - the channels and the sanctions vary depending on many factors - it is within these parameters that freedom is expressed. love the qualification
Peace and Love
also in the majjhima nikaya the Lord Buddha states that this one Buddhist kingdom cannot be beaten cause they are united and follow the dharma.
The military is for killing; being an ambassador, or mediator, or something to that effect, also allows you to defend your country but via non-violent methods. Being a chaplain or medic still contributes to the war machine, but at least you're actively helping beings, instead of actively blowing them up.
The problem is that we mix military service up with "defense." Everyone has a right to defend him/herself, and that probably extends to true national defense--a Canadian border guard, for example. Where, interestingly enough, you would NOT be allowed to shoot on sight but instead must process the suspect according to rule of law.
But our military now (especially post-Bush) is all about preemptive defense--in other words, offense. Even in its most honorable moments, it's hard to justify participating, but certainly today, I don't see it is (very) possible.
I don't mean you shouldn't do it, just that you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking there's ever a completely ethical way (by Buddhist standards) to participate in an organization which spends so much effort designing and implementing ways to end other humans' lives.
It's also worth pointing out that when we delude ourselves into thinking we are helping our country by serving, we may not be - "protecting" American from the non-threat of the bogus "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (no such organization existed before the war) has only made Americans less safe, not more, and cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives.
Military participation has eroded America's defenses, not strengthened them; we cannot trust that our military supervisors and commanders are making decisions which truly have America's logical best-interests at heart; they are sadly not that far-sighted, or are not allowed to be--generally they're reacting to ever-changing mandates from above which are extremely short-term and self-serving, as opposed to long-term and peace-serving.
Sorry so ramb(o)ly.
If you're joining the military with the intent of defending your country I don't see a conflict. On a personal level, when you don't know which path is the right one, I find that doing a bit of both allows me to make an informed decision. I think you're only required to do two years after training in the UK, so you do those two years and if you find that it isn't what you want you can just leave.
It doesn't have to be this big Sophie's choice between the military and Buddhism. Pre-emptive warfare is a completely legitimate means of defense. You don't wait for the poisonous snake to bite you before you kick it out of the house. You know it's going to bite you, so you remove the threat before it has a chance to do so. Oh boy :rolleyes:
It's very hard to make a case for preemptive defense, in any situation. In the US, at least, you cannot legally take preemptive action in your own defense by harming someone else. That gives us a good indication that "defense" is actually different from offense; defense generally has to come in reaction to specific, imminent aggression. The law (and Buddhism) generally give the imminence factor the greatest analysis--was the gun to your head at the moment you struck? Was the gunman walking away, but still turning and looking at you? Had the gunman just shot someone else, and was now moving your way?
Buddhist ethical standards, likewise, do not accept preemptive defense as a reality. Both the law and Buddhist standards, though, would take into consideration the person's feelings of fear and peril when judging that person's offensive actions; but those actions would nonetheless be judged as offensive, not defensive.
People who are taking offensive action should have the guts to say so, and not be ashamed if they feel its the right thing to do. But calling it "preemptive defense" is a misnomer. Better to just come right out and say, "I felt offensive action was necessary," and accept the consequences.
But, you're not allowed to shoot him in the back, the idea being that if he's leaving the threat has gone.
It's all about eliminating a threat before it can cause the harm it has promised.
The problem isn't in eliminating a known threat, but proving that it was a threat. In the case of justifying defensive action (domestically), one must prove it was an imminent thread. For me, personally, that's the most interesting part to discussions on this topic--what is "imminence?" How is it defined by various legal systems and nations?
Domestic law is incredibly conservative on what may be defined as defense; the current military definition wouldn't make the cut. I think these multiple standards are interesting and topic-worthy.
It is very hard for you to make a case for preemptive defense. Many of us have gotten way beyond that.
The military-minded, though, have other options, too--you may scoff, but I believe very strongly in the intelligence community which, when doing what it's supposed to, is working to prevent wars more than start them. There are a host of ways to defend ones nation.
I think it would increase the likelihood of soldiers not following orders, lol
But jokes aside, it's a great question. If the military itself became more compassionate, would that be a good thing?
Do you try to change the world by ordering veggie-burgers from Burger King, to try and influence the big guys, or do you avoid factory farming businesses altogether and support your local co-op? I ask myself that all the time. When I'm on the road and hungry, I swing into a Burger King in hopes that those BK Veggie orders do some good.
For me, it's all body count--do fewer people/animals suffer if I make Decision A or B?
Not knowing the answer, my gut instinct is to avoid Burger Kings and the military; I personally feel better supporting the co-op and working a job which I think contributes to peace, as opposed to a job that inflicts death when peace has failed. But I admit I don't know--if someone told me tomorrow that more Buddhists in the military would contribute significantly to world peace, I would consider it an option.
Then we get into the territory where we are expecting certain Buddhists to violate their vows of non-killing, by joining the military, hopefully to contribute overall to what we is less killing.
I think Buddhism is pretty clear that killing is never, truly wise except in the actual moment of individual self-defense.
This is a pretty thought-provoking tenet. It means that even if you feel strongly a man is going to get up tomorrow morning and shoot someone, you can't stop him ahead of time (interestingly, this is what the laws of most nations dictate as well).
It doesn't mean we have to accept it, but if we're Buddhist, we have to be honest about what this tenet does and doesn't mean. I do think it's interesting that the Buddhist tenet against killing very closely mirrors the law of most lands--that's compelling, as well.
It means that the military is an exception, and we should ask why, and whether it's logical.
When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,
"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
— MN 21
When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all. This is because this sort of unconditional promise is a powerful gift.
It seems that when it comes to anti-war reasoning, quite a few of our members immediately point to the Precepts.
But then, when they're talking about drinking or drug use or some other Precepts that one would come across in everyday life, they mention that the Precepts are "just" guidelines, apparently not to be taken too seriously.
You can use other justifications, but I don't see picking one Precept you like and ignoring others is a very valid justification for anything.
Others may, of course, disagree.
Interestingly, when I took refuge, my Geshe said he was only giving us one vow ("You can always add more later!"): Be kind.
It covers a lot.
I guess what I'm saying is that I would respect a person much more if they said, "I just don't believe in supporting the military because it results in death", rather than someone who says, "I don't believe in supporting the military due to the Buddhist Precept against killing; now let's go have a beer."
And the way I phrased it, "some are weighted more heavily than others," betrays my Christian upbringing I suppose--the idea that someone is out there "weighing," or even just that it's our fellow Buddhists "weighing" our actions--the only weight is that which is inherent to the action. If you take a drink, the negative karma weighs this much; if you take a life, the negative karma weighs that much. Just karmic physics.
I would hate to hear someone say that eating meat is killing, which is not allowed, so hand in your Buddhism card and come back when you are ready to be serious. Buddhism would die out so quickly if this was the case. Everyone has their own path and their own realizations as they learn... Military service may be a block in the path for some, and it is up to them to learn this and move past it when the time is right to do so, but it may not be a block in everyone's path.
So I wouldn't get too hung up on what the right answer is unless it is something you are currently working on for yourself.
there will be endless arguments about the pros and cons of being a soldier.
my advice, dont be a soldier.
if you like engineering , be an engineer.
I personally do think some precepts are more important than others. I'm not justifying anything, as I haven't taken any precepts at this point. But really it's the same if you look at most sets of rules. Take for example the 10 commandments. Most people are going to agree that "taking the name of God in vain" is less important in the grand scheme of things, than taking a life. Doesn't make it a-okay to do, but I certainly think some guidelines are more important than others. Clearly even something that seems so simple as "don't harm any being" is not nearly as simple as it sounds. None of the precepts are really as simple as they look, especially in today's world. I think everyone has to decide what the precepts mean to them, and I think most people if they stick with Buddhism find their views on such things constantly evolving. I haven't even been studying it that long, a matter of months really, and my views on certain things have already changed.
But as is said in the quote I used above, once you make those promises to yourself, they are meant to be meaningful, powerful promises. I don't intend to ever take the Precepts and cross my fingers behind my back when it comes to ones I don't entirely agree with. I don't intend to make those promises until I know where I stand with myself on them. But, just because I haven't taken the precepts doesn't mean I can't use them in discussion, and it doesn't mean I can't have a differing opinion of them based on my currently limited understanding. Engaging with others on their understanding is one of the ways that helps me further develop mine. It's not a bad thing.
It's just wishful thinking.
I really don't have any time for that.
The idea that that might be so is just one more "my religion is better than your religion" tack. Human nature and history trumps religion in this particular case. And if I'm wrong, show me the example. You say Hitler, I'll say Pol Pot.