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.
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.
Indeed. And the other big religions say 'do not kill' too. I don't think that the western missionaries who died unbelievably horrible deaths at the hands of the tibetans a century ago would have thought them very compassionate either.
Our western armies are supposedly Christian, but many individuals within them (and the societies they come from) are probably not actively or devoutly so, just paying lip service to a religion they were baptised into when too young to have a choice in the matter.
Whether Christian or Buddhist, I guess armies might be more compassionate if they included more individuals who actually followed that religion's scriptures?
Whether Christian or Buddhist, I guess armies might be more compassionate if they included more individuals who actually followed that religion's scriptures?
I think that's a bit of a false premise because it's based on the assumption that armies aren't compassionate. I think that's too broad a statement to be true.
Whether Christian or Buddhist, I guess armies might be more compassionate if they included more individuals who actually followed that religion's scriptures?
I think that's a bit of a false premise because it's based on the assumption that armies aren't compassionate. I think that's too broad a statement to be true.
Whether Christian or Buddhist, I guess armies might be more compassionate if they included more individuals who actually followed that religion's scriptures?
I think that's a bit of a false premise because it's based on the assumption that armies aren't compassionate. I think that's too broad a statement to be true.
More then 50% of all shots fired are aimed to miss... consiously or sub-consiously...
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.
Choose the path that makes sense to you, but if that path requires the denigrating of others to validate your own choice, that's one sad little path that you've chosen.
Pol Pot was no more a Buddhist than Hitler was a Christian. Pol Pot actually banned Buddhism and executed many Buddhist monks.
I am a Canadian. I get to be safely peace oriented in the shadow of the US and so I have no easy answers for Buddhists in the military. While I do appreciate that the military will include folks with an interest in spiritual morals, choosing a job as a Buddhist that is likely to require your killing of others is like listening to an alcoholic justifying why he is choosing to work in a brewery. One could endlessly discuss the pro's & conns of the military's place in this world but the only question I'd be focusing on here is...." Is it really the right choice you?". I can see it if one approaches Buddhism as a hobby but just don't be surprised at the personal complications of such a career choice if you ever let it grab hold of your heart.
Pol Pot was no more a Buddhist than Hitler was a Christian. Pol Pot actually banned Buddhism and executed many Buddhist monks.
Yes, I'm aware of what Pol Pot did. But what I am referring to is that Pol Pot and the vast majority of his army had been raised as Buddhist. Yet, it made no difference because political power trumped the beliefs/former beliefs.
It's just wishful thinking. I really don't have any time for that.
That's the problem.
I don't consider it a problem. I'm pragmatic, and dreaming about what the world should be like is just a massive waste of time to me. We can all make the fantasy world in our heads into whatever we want, but they have no basis in reality and daydreams help nobody. Sitting and wishing the world would conform to my views of what's good and what isn't really isn't my cup of tea because it doesn't help to deal with any of the actual problems that the actual world is facing, and it also implies that I'm somehow the authority on how the world should work. Which I'm really not.
Thinking of ways to bring peace to the actual world we live in is one thing, creating a whole new reality is our heads is quite another.
Many real changes start with dreams, or to be honest, all change generally starts with a thought. It's what you do or don't do about the thought that we see as "real," but any action generally starts with a thought. Many an African American dreamed of not sitting at the back of the bus, and many a woman dreamed of owning her own company. The only real waste of time is to stop dreaming and striving altogether. And of course not everyone is compelled to work on the same dream. One person may feel strongly that another's dream is useless, even, but many a dream has taken generations to come true.
It's a very personal decision, deciding whether a particular choice "can't be helped because we're living in an imperfect world.". Everyone has to make his/her own deal with samsara, in the end, I suppose.
No I don't mean like having an idea or a goal or thinking of practical ways to change things in the world, I agree, that's how good things happen, I mean wishing that things were somehow just magically different.
If you're thinking of ways to stop both sides showing up to a war, I think we could all get behind that! But just thinking about how nice the world would be if people didn't bother doesn't really help anything at all.
When black people wanted to sit on the back of the bus, the held rallies and made plans and protested and went out there to bring about that change, they didn't just wish the day away.
I guess it started that way (I had a dream, right? ) but without appropriate action the dream would have stayed a dream. It wasn't the dream that changed anything, it was the people actively working for change.
It's the difference between dreaming about driving a Cadillac and going out there and working a job that pays you enough to be able to buy one.
If you're thinking of ways to stop both sides showing up to a war, I think we could all get behind that!
Actually, I take that back. That would go under "waste of time" in my internal filing system because I don't believe you can change the basic nature of so many people all at once by any means whatsoever. Perhaps you could sway an individual or two but you'd never stop everyone showing up to war. People make war, it's what we do, it's part of our basic nature. An individual can choose to overcome it, but if even the Buddha couldn't stop all the people from making all the war I doubt anyone else could.
Many people would support it, and that's cool, I just personally can't get behind it because I personally don't see the point. I'm not against someone going for it, but it wouldn't be of personal interest to me because I don't think it's possible.
Maybe I'll just be like those people who didn't invest in google when it was 10 bucks a share and regret it, but I think the war free world would make up for that
But like I said, I don't think it's possible because I don't think you can fight human nature on that kind of scale, and that if anyone could have it would have been the Buddha and he would have done it by now. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes to me.
A world without war. It's a wonderful idea. But, it's never happened. And not for wont of trying. The two greatest examples -- the League Of Nations and the United Nations.
Should people make every effort to avoid war? Of course. And sometimes that may succeed in some small ways...and so it's worthwhile. But sitting around singing "Kumbaya" or "Imagine" doesn't make it happen.
@RebeccaS and @vinlyn Do you know any suttas that either outright says or could suggest that participation in the military/war is justified in buddhism?
I don't know about that, I haven't read all of them, however -
"Buddhist morality is based on principles, not rules. Our principles are those expressed in the Precepts and the Four Immeasurables -- loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Our principles also are kindness, gentleness, mercy and tolerance. Even the most extreme circumstances do not erase those principles or make it "righteous" or "good" to violate them.
Yet neither is it "good" or "righteous" to stand aside while innocent people are slaughtered. And the late Ven. Dr. K Sri Dhammananda, a Theravadin monks and scholar, said, "The Buddha did not teach His followers to surrender to any form of evil power be it a human or supernatural being."
In "What Buddhist Believe," the Venerable Dhammananda wrote, "Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world."
So clearly there are at least Buddhist scholars who take this position.
@RebeccaS I have no doubt there are buddhist scholars that take that position. It seems like a question he would have addressed at some point and I wanted to read the words for myself: especially since when the buddha choses not to comment on something there is still something being said.
@RebeccaS and @vinlyn Do you know any suttas that either outright says or could suggest that participation in the military/war is justified in buddhism?
No I don't. And frankly, I don't care. I don't feel that Buddhist scriptures always answer all the "reality" questions about life.
I still believe the concept of imminence comes into play.
If your neighbor is being held at gunpoint, and you go in and take out the gunman, the law would be somewhat forgiving of the fact that the gun wasn't to your own head. (Any lawyers here? I don't know personally how that one would work).
If your neighbor receives a letter from someone saying they will come and kill your neighbor, you can't go and kill the person who sent the letter without being charged with murder or manslaughter.
The Buddhist view on karma doesn't see as much difference between types of killing as the law does, in my experience. Karma is a natural law; the taking of a life is a very great force in your own karma, very heavy, and has heavy, natural effects. It's not a matter of being judged by someone else as to whether your killing was justified or not. It's just the physics of cause and effect. Your choice to kill is basically a sacrifice you make; you generate this very heavy, negative karma, but because you feel you have no choice (does this sound right, to those more studied on the Buddhist path than I?)
At any rate, getting back to war, it's almost impossible to have the discussion, because people's views on what military actions have been "justified" in the past century are so completely disparate, and because any time someone tries to say a particular action was unjustified, they're accused, one way or another, of being unpatriotic, against the troops, or against America. None of which are true in my case, but I do have very strong beliefs about certain actions, and generally an attempt to discuss them will descend into such arguments about which Islamist organization exists, which does not, and so forth.
Worthy discussions, but they are investigations which would take years to pick apart and analyze and possibly agree upon.
Using the American example, until we stop making all (American) military action sacrosanct, off-limits for judging, it will be really hard to discuss the Buddhist aspect of being in the military.
The Iraqis who blow up American soldiers are not doing anything different than the American rebels who defended their streets agains the British; we condemn one, and laud the other. It's very difficult to get past this bias, in my experience.
@RebeccaS and @vinlyn Do you know any suttas that either outright says or could suggest that participation in the military/war is justified in buddhism?
No I don't. And frankly, I don't care. I don't feel that Buddhist scriptures always answer all the "reality" questions about life.
@vinlyn my question wasn't meant as a means to prove a point in one direction or the other. It was a genuine interest in something that you might have had more information about. I also, wasn't looking for something that specifically answered this question; rather I was looking for anything, even a more general teaching, that might have shed some light for the OP (and myself).
@webster26 we all have to ultimately make our own decisions. We are all at different stages in our lives and only you can decide if this action is skillful for you. Trust nobody but your own heart.
The link is a paper someone wrote but there are a ton of quotes with references if you care to read through it.
I did find this as well: "In times of war Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion, Helping living beings Abandon the will to fight. Wherever there is furious battle, Use all your might To keep both sides' strength equal And then step in to reconcile this conflict. " (Vimalakirti Sutra)
The Iraqis who blow up American soldiers are not doing anything different than the American rebels who defended their streets agains the British; we condemn one, and laud the other. It's very difficult to get past this bias, in my experience.
I agree. We think Bin Laden was a sicko but Islamic extremists loved him.
We know we're right, they know they're right. We could argue it forever. It's interesting to hear other view points, but, given that Buddhism is such a personal path, with precepts that allow for changes in context and circumstances, some things aren't going to apply to everyone. Buddhism isn't a clear cut, black and white way of looking at things, and two completely different answers can be totally correct to the two individuals who are espousing them.
Whether they are right or not in an ultimate context is hard to say for me. Obviously I believe what I say is right, or I wouldn't say it, but it's a huge possibility that I'm wrong. And that's cool, but I'm beginning to feel like having an opinion on it at all is pointless for me personally because I'm not in the situation, it's in no way applicable to my life and it's not something I really have to worry about if I don't want to.
I don't feel that Buddhist scriptures always answer all the "reality" questions about life.
Sure. But to me the first precept seems quite straightforward, as does the Dhammapada quote I gave earlier. I don't understand why people are fudging the issue.
I don't feel that Buddhist scriptures always answer all the "reality" questions about life.
Sure. But to me the first precept seems quite straightforward, as does the Dhammapada quote I gave earlier. I don't understand why people are fudging the issue.
I don't understand why people are fudging the Precept about drugs and alcohol.
I don't understand why people so often say that the Precepts are just guidelines.
But for me, I see Buddhism as a philosophy more than a religion, and as nice as the first Precept is in theory -- and something to work toward as a goal -- I do see it as being always realistic.
I think precept really means "training rule" in Buddhism. There are people who won't follow them perfectly, or may intentionally distort them, but that just means they won't get as much from the training/practice. They may be absolutely in harmony with how reality actually is, but they're still not moral absolutes... there's no one to judge, there's only karma and its consequences.
I think precept really means "training rule" in Buddhism. There are people who won't follow them perfectly, or may intentionally distort them, but that just means they won't get as much from the training/practice. They may be absolutely in harmony with how reality actually is, but they're still not moral absolutes... there's no one to judge, there's only karma and its consequences.
Pretty sure @vinlyn. They were never issued as moral absolutes, only training rules to aid in the cessation of suffering. If anyone finds it said differently, I'm all ears, but I've only ever heard "precepts" referred to as "training rules".
Every Wikipedia has them listed as such, for what that's worth. "They are not formulated as imperatives, but as training rules that laypeople undertake voluntarily to facilitate practice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts
Also AccessToInsight, which I trust more. "These basic training rules are observed by all practicing lay Buddhists. The precepts are often recited after reciting the formula for taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html
And finally BuddhaNet, another source I trust. "A lay Buddhist should cultivate good conduct by training in what are known as the "Five Precepts". These are not like, say, the ten commandments, which, if broken, entail punishment by God. The five precepts are training rules, which, if one were to break any of them, one should be aware of the breech and examine how such a breech may be avoided in the future." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm
@vinlyn I think they are framed as guidelines to follow for optimum efficiency, haha. Ways to stop creating unskillful karma so you can see things more clearly and get the most out of the rest of your practice.
If you want to ignore the importance of the 5 Precepts because they are not commandments, then you can ignore all of Buddha's teachings, because they too are not commandments.
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #1, then why do we keep having these foolish conversations on this forum about the importance of vegetarianism?
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #2, then why not just go shoplifting tomorrow and stock up on all that you may need?
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #3, then why not just accept that men can force themselves upon women (or other men)? Hot dog!
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #4, then why not just ignore all the lies people tell?
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #5, then why not just all go out and get drunk or stoned all the time?
I'll tell you why you shouldn't ignore these Precepts. And it has nothing to do with going to hell. It has to do with the establishment of a uniform moral code, which almost every religion does in almost every culture.
And, without these Precepts, Buddhism has no morality, but it's a mere social game to have a better selfish life.
I didn't say anything about not taking them seriously, I'm just making the distinction. They're for our benefit... if we don't take them seriously, we don't benefit.
They're for our benefit... if we don't take them seriously, we don't benefit.
I don't think they're just for our personal benefit - look again for example at the Dhammapada quote I posted earlier, look at the Metta Sutta. And look at the underlying principle ( spirit ) of the precepts, which is non-harm.
And to broaden the discussion, look at how Buddhist ethics were developed in terms of the Bodhisattva ideal.
So following the discussion, I'm wondering if we can at least agree that Buddhism does discourage violence and conflict but leaves the door open to self defense and defending the life of other people? We could never engage in war "In the name of Buddha" or to win converts, but for Buddhists still living a lay life, too much depends on the situation for a pat response?
So following the discussion, I'm wondering if we can at least agree that Buddhism does discourage violence and conflict but leaves the door open to self defense and defending the life of other people?
I think Buddhism encourages the observation of these principles as consistently as any religion encourages them - maybe even more so, especially in the case of "no harm."
But as has been pointed out, it's not a set of rules enforced by anyone, or even said to be enforced by anyone; rather, it's the wise encouraging those who want to live more wisely.
In the end, it's advice, according to theories developed through trial, error, reasoning and insight, on how to achieve the greatest temporary, and permanent, happiness.
I didn't say anything about not taking them seriously, I'm just making the distinction. They're for our benefit... if we don't take them seriously, we don't benefit.
I didn't say anything about not taking them seriously, I'm just making the distinction. They're for our benefit... if we don't take them seriously, we don't benefit.
No, they're for everyone's benefit.
But you could choose to not benefit from them, right? I think? Maybe not... I mean, if someone having a hard time met a Buddhist in the street and the Buddhist cheers him up, he'd have still benefited from them even though he's not choosing to live by them himself.
@vinlyn, "Our" benefit, yes. Following the precepts is good, and Buddhists should really consider carefully why they would break any of those precepts. The benefit to the practitioner is restraint from unskillful/unwholesome acts that are an obstruction to liberation, and the benefit to others is also valuable in that the precepts are based on non-harm. I certainly didn't mean we shouldn't follow them, I was only pointing out that they are in fact not moral absolutes; they are not commandments, but something we undertake voluntarily for our good and the good of others. I think Buddhists hold to the five precepts in better faith than the commandments of other religions, honestly.
they are in fact not moral absolutes; they are not commandments, but something we undertake voluntarily for our good and the good of others.
Only because in Buddhism, there is no 'God' judging how well you do - if there were, voluntary guidance would be mandatory - in Buddhism, the judge is you - what you see really depends on what you want to see - the precepts are a personal undertaking - the same personal undertaking that is given at the outset in religions that have a god - the undertaking to obey/to do.
You can cut it how you like - jump from one foot to another - create clever arguments for and against - do a little dance if you think it helps! It is still absolutely crystal clear - no killing.
Killing can occur in so many different ways that if direct premeditated paths are not extinguishable then what chance do we have in dealing with the subtle causes? The responsibility falls to us as individual humans.
There's no question about what the precepts mean. The precept against killing means no intentional killing, and likewise for the others. Most Buddhists follow the precepts out of an understanding for why those actions are harmful for themselves and others, rather than as a divine mandate. All lay Buddhists are encouraged to keep the five precepts both as a preventative measure against harm and as a way to keep their minds blame-free for meditative practice (if they meditate). Abstaining from unskillful acts also opens up a space where we can cultivate skillful ones.
There's no question about what the precepts mean. The precept against killing means no intentional killing, and likewise for the others. Most Buddhists follow the precepts out of an understanding for why those actions are harmful for themselves and others, rather than as a divine mandate. All lay Buddhists are encouraged to keep the five precepts both as a preventative measure against harm and as a way to keep their minds blame-free for meditative practice (if they meditate). Abstaining from unskillful acts also opens up a space where we can cultivate skillful ones.
I think you're wrong. I think most Buddhists do not follow the Precepts.
The precepts are mind training rules. The military is one specific training environment. So I think the question is how the training in the military affects the soldiers mind. Again, it is not a commandment, but rather a training rule. However, it also is related to karma. I am not an authority, but I suppose the training in the military might cause karma leading to less advantageous conditions for Buddhist practice. When you shoot a gun you may hope for screams. You might be psychologically damaged for the present and future. So training rules and karmic scars are the problem, not commandments akin to Christianity.
And, without these Precepts, Buddhism has no morality, but it's a mere social game to have a better selfish life.
I disagree. From my limited wisdom/realizations/insight/whatever you want to call it, the behavior behind following the precepts is action that come from wisdom and in turn those actions promote wisdom.
Comments
and a buddhist.
it's all good.
Our western armies are supposedly Christian, but many individuals within them (and the societies they come from) are probably not actively or devoutly so, just paying lip service to a religion they were baptised into when too young to have a choice in the matter.
Whether Christian or Buddhist, I guess armies might be more compassionate if they included more individuals who actually followed that religion's scriptures?
consiously or sub-consiously...
. Choose the path that makes sense to you, but if that path requires the denigrating of others to validate your own choice, that's one sad little path that you've chosen.
Pol Pot was no more a Buddhist than Hitler was a Christian.
Pol Pot actually banned Buddhism and executed many Buddhist monks.
I am a Canadian. I get to be safely peace oriented in the shadow of the US and so I have no easy answers for Buddhists in the military.
While I do appreciate that the military will include folks with an interest in spiritual morals, choosing a job as a Buddhist that is likely to require your killing of others is like listening to an alcoholic justifying why he is choosing to work in a brewery.
One could endlessly discuss the pro's & conns of the military's place in this world but the only question I'd be focusing on here is...." Is it really the right choice you?".
I can see it if one approaches Buddhism as a hobby but just don't be surprised at the personal complications of such a career choice if you ever let it grab hold of your heart.
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
Thinking of ways to bring peace to the actual world we live in is one thing, creating a whole new reality is our heads is quite another.
It's a very personal decision, deciding whether a particular choice "can't be helped because we're living in an imperfect world.". Everyone has to make his/her own deal with samsara, in the end, I suppose.
If you're thinking of ways to stop both sides showing up to a war, I think we could all get behind that! But just thinking about how nice the world would be if people didn't bother doesn't really help anything at all.
When black people wanted to sit on the back of the bus, the held rallies and made plans and protested and went out there to bring about that change, they didn't just wish the day away.
I guess it started that way (I had a dream, right?
It's the difference between dreaming about driving a Cadillac and going out there and working a job that pays you enough to be able to buy one.
Many people would support it, and that's cool, I just personally can't get behind it because I personally don't see the point. I'm not against someone going for it, but it wouldn't be of personal interest to me because I don't think it's possible.
Maybe I'll just be like those people who didn't invest in google when it was 10 bucks a share and regret it, but I think the war free world would make up for that
But like I said, I don't think it's possible because I don't think you can fight human nature on that kind of scale, and that if anyone could have it would have been the Buddha and he would have done it by now. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes to me.
A world without war. It's a wonderful idea. But, it's never happened. And not for wont of trying. The two greatest examples -- the League Of Nations and the United Nations.
Should people make every effort to avoid war? Of course. And sometimes that may succeed in some small ways...and so it's worthwhile. But sitting around singing "Kumbaya" or "Imagine" doesn't make it happen.
"Buddhist morality is based on principles, not rules. Our principles are those expressed in the Precepts and the Four Immeasurables -- loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Our principles also are kindness, gentleness, mercy and tolerance. Even the most extreme circumstances do not erase those principles or make it "righteous" or "good" to violate them.
Yet neither is it "good" or "righteous" to stand aside while innocent people are slaughtered. And the late Ven. Dr. K Sri Dhammananda, a Theravadin monks and scholar, said, "The Buddha did not teach His followers to surrender to any form of evil power be it a human or supernatural being."
In "What Buddhist Believe," the Venerable Dhammananda wrote,
"Buddhists should not be the aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of the brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced the worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence. However, if everyone were to follow the advice of the Buddha, there would be no reason for war to take place in this world."
So clearly there are at least Buddhist scholars who take this position.
If your neighbor is being held at gunpoint, and you go in and take out the gunman, the law would be somewhat forgiving of the fact that the gun wasn't to your own head. (Any lawyers here? I don't know personally how that one would work).
If your neighbor receives a letter from someone saying they will come and kill your neighbor, you can't go and kill the person who sent the letter without being charged with murder or manslaughter.
The Buddhist view on karma doesn't see as much difference between types of killing as the law does, in my experience. Karma is a natural law; the taking of a life is a very great force in your own karma, very heavy, and has heavy, natural effects. It's not a matter of being judged by someone else as to whether your killing was justified or not. It's just the physics of cause and effect. Your choice to kill is basically a sacrifice you make; you generate this very heavy, negative karma, but because you feel you have no choice (does this sound right, to those more studied on the Buddhist path than I?)
At any rate, getting back to war, it's almost impossible to have the discussion, because people's views on what military actions have been "justified" in the past century are so completely disparate, and because any time someone tries to say a particular action was unjustified, they're accused, one way or another, of being unpatriotic, against the troops, or against America. None of which are true in my case, but I do have very strong beliefs about certain actions, and generally an attempt to discuss them will descend into such arguments about which Islamist organization exists, which does not, and so forth.
Worthy discussions, but they are investigations which would take years to pick apart and analyze and possibly agree upon.
Using the American example, until we stop making all (American) military action sacrosanct, off-limits for judging, it will be really hard to discuss the Buddhist aspect of being in the military.
The Iraqis who blow up American soldiers are not doing anything different than the American rebels who defended their streets agains the British; we condemn one, and laud the other. It's very difficult to get past this bias, in my experience.
@webster26 we all have to ultimately make our own decisions. We are all at different stages in our lives and only you can decide if this action is skillful for you. Trust nobody but your own heart.
The link is a paper someone wrote but there are a ton of quotes with references if you care to read through it.
I did find this as well:
"In times of war
Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings
Abandon the will to fight.
Wherever there is furious battle,
Use all your might
To keep both sides' strength equal
And then step in to reconcile this conflict. "
(Vimalakirti Sutra)
We know we're right, they know they're right. We could argue it forever. It's interesting to hear other view points, but, given that Buddhism is such a personal path, with precepts that allow for changes in context and circumstances, some things aren't going to apply to everyone. Buddhism isn't a clear cut, black and white way of looking at things, and two completely different answers can be totally correct to the two individuals who are espousing them.
Whether they are right or not in an ultimate context is hard to say for me. Obviously I believe what I say is right, or I wouldn't say it, but it's a huge possibility that I'm wrong. And that's cool, but I'm beginning to feel like having an opinion on it at all is pointless for me personally because I'm not in the situation, it's in no way applicable to my life and it's not something I really have to worry about if I don't want to.
Rambling
What's difficult about not putting ourselves into a situation where we might be ordered to kill people?
It's harder to miss with a machine gun though.
I don't understand why people so often say that the Precepts are just guidelines.
But for me, I see Buddhism as a philosophy more than a religion, and as nice as the first Precept is in theory -- and something to work toward as a goal -- I do see it as being always realistic.
Every Wikipedia has them listed as such, for what that's worth.
"They are not formulated as imperatives, but as training rules that laypeople undertake voluntarily to facilitate practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts
Also AccessToInsight, which I trust more.
"These basic training rules are observed by all practicing lay Buddhists. The precepts are often recited after reciting the formula for taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html
And finally BuddhaNet, another source I trust.
"A lay Buddhist should cultivate good conduct by training in what are known as the "Five Precepts". These are not like, say, the ten commandments, which, if broken, entail punishment by God. The five precepts are training rules, which, if one were to break any of them, one should be aware of the breech and examine how such a breech may be avoided in the future."
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #1, then why do we keep having these foolish conversations on this forum about the importance of vegetarianism?
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #2, then why not just go shoplifting tomorrow and stock up on all that you may need?
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #3, then why not just accept that men can force themselves upon women (or other men)? Hot dog!
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #4, then why not just ignore all the lies people tell?
If you want to ignore the importance of Precept #5, then why not just all go out and get drunk or stoned all the time?
I'll tell you why you shouldn't ignore these Precepts. And it has nothing to do with going to hell. It has to do with the establishment of a uniform moral code, which almost every religion does in almost every culture.
And, without these Precepts, Buddhism has no morality, but it's a mere social game to have a better selfish life.
And look at the underlying principle ( spirit ) of the precepts, which is non-harm.
And to broaden the discussion, look at how Buddhist ethics were developed in terms of the Bodhisattva ideal.
But as has been pointed out, it's not a set of rules enforced by anyone, or even said to be enforced by anyone; rather, it's the wise encouraging those who want to live more wisely.
In the end, it's advice, according to theories developed through trial, error, reasoning and insight, on how to achieve the greatest temporary, and permanent, happiness.
I don't know
:bowdown:
You can cut it how you like - jump from one foot to another - create clever arguments for and against - do a little dance if you think it helps! It is still absolutely crystal clear - no killing.
Killing can occur in so many different ways that if direct premeditated paths are not extinguishable then what chance do we have in dealing with the subtle causes? The responsibility falls to us as individual humans.
So training rules and karmic scars are the problem, not commandments akin to Christianity.