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.
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.
You could also say that meditation is neccessary. Who shall draw the line at how many minutes/week and make an announcement of who is and isn't Buddhist? I don't believe such a distinction is helpful to say someone else is not Buddhist.
You could also say that meditation is neccessary. Who shall draw the line at how many minutes/week and make an announcement of who is and isn't Buddhist? I don't believe such a distinction is helpful to say someone else is not Buddhist.
@Jeffrey I am not sure I completely understand what you mean by your comment.
I was saying that I disagree that buddhism does not have morality without Precepts. I feel that morality is "built-in" at a more foundational level and the precepts are a contextual expression or extrapolation of that morality.
Concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (vipassana) are also important pieces, but since each person is different and in a different position in life, their understanding, application, and balance of all three tools will be different.
@tmottes, I was responding to vinylyn. He said that lack of precepts meant a non-Buddhist. I pointed out that meditation could also be our yardstick of referance. That would be a slippery slope to even defining how many minutes. I really hate people to turn someone off to buddhism based on intoxication or even killing. Buddhism is supposed to transform us where we are. There is no weed out before becoming Buddhist.
So I think the question is how the training in the military affects the soldiers mind.
Soldiers are trained to follow orders. It's a form of brainwashing.
I don't think that's quite fair, it's about learning to trust a higher authority, people who have more experience, more specialized training and who are equipped to lead. There's a good reason they don't just put privates in charge, and why there is a promotional ladder to work your way up. You'd do well to trust your superiors for that reason - they know what they're doing and you don't. I definitely see it more as a lesson in trust and humility than something as sinister as brainwashing.
So I think the question is how the training in the military affects the soldiers mind.
Soldiers are trained to follow orders. It's a form of brainwashing.
I don't think that's quite fair, it's about learning to trust a higher authority, people who have more experience, more specialized training and who are equipped to lead.... I definitely see it more as a lesson in trust and humility than something as sinister as brainwashing.
Have you read any accounts of the First World War? Thousands upon thousands walking straight into massed machine gun fire?
I could talk WWII until the cows come home... This is a pic of some of the books and dvd's we own on WWII... http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/ww2o.jpg/ We also have cool collectors items like photographs of Patton and Eisenhower. So, I really would like to talk WWII
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?
Yes, it potentially conflicts with certain aspects of Buddhism. That said, the Buddha never forbade soldiers, even those actively engaged in warfare, from being lay-followers; although he certainly didn't approve of their actions, either. The Buddha, much like the Jains, stressed the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness. The main purpose of warfare is to kill others, and the Buddha was clearly of the opinion that killing rarely benefits anyone, if ever. Nevertheless, it all comes down to intention; and if your intention isn't to harm but to protect others, I see less of a problem in it. In addition, I suggest checking out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "Getting the Message" and Major General Ananda Weerasekera's essay "Buddhism & The Soldier" for two different perspectives on this issue.
I could talk WWII until the cows come home... This is a pic of some of the books and dvd's we own on WWII... http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/ww2o.jpg/ We also have cool collectors items like photographs of Patton and Eisenhower. So, I really would like to talk WWII
Have your read The Good War by Studs Terkel? If not, you should. Personally, I don't see how someone could possibly try to kill a complete stranger who's done no harm to him without a fair amount of brainwashing.
It is a form of brainwashing, in a sense, yes. My uncle was a drill sargeant at Camp Pendelton for many, many years and he talked about it in depth. All of the ridiculing, humiliating, screaming and yelling at boot camp goes on for a reason. To break down what you think you know so that they can mold you into someone who will follow orders the right way. One loses much of what they bring to boot camp with them in the process, and emerge as what the military wants them to be. Now, many people believe there is a purpose to this type of training, but it is a form of brainwashing really. They don't honor who you are or anything. They turn you into someone else in some senses.
Anyhow, I read something this morning in a book Lama Dorjee gave us at last weekends retreat and wanted to share it here. The book is "Change of Heart: The Bodhisattva Peace Training of Chagdud Tulku"
"Similarly, in the area of world peace, we all wish to protect those ravaged by war, yet those who wage war will eventually experience the negative consequences of their actions. Because of the aggressors' power and arrogance, and the terrible suffering they inflict, it may be hard to feel compassion for them. Nonetheless, we need to hold war makers and victims both in the same compassionate embrace. Wars happen because of attachment to one own's country and ideology. If the leader of a nation decides to go to war, people on both sides of the conflict will die. His responsibility for many deaths, or even just one or two, will have serious karmic consequences."
Basically unless you go to war with the idea that you are willing to give your life for the protection of everyone (not just your people, your army, your government, your religion etc) you are going for the wrong reasons. That means if you go to war in Afghanistan, you must be as willing to die to protect an Afghani rebel as you are to protect your own general. This goes against the very grain of what they teach in the military. You protect your own, you protect your country against seen enemies. You certainly don't feel compassion for the enemy. (according to the book)
@tmottes, I was responding to vinylyn. He said that lack of precepts meant a non-Buddhist. I pointed out that meditation could also be our yardstick of referance. That would be a slippery slope to even defining how many minutes. I really hate people to turn someone off to buddhism based on intoxication or even killing. Buddhism is supposed to transform us where we are. There is no weed out before becoming Buddhist.
@Karasti I think that's the Doctors Without Borders ethos? They just go and help the injured, whoever they are if I remember correctly. Really cool.
But there are wars that we join to protect people who aren't necessarily of our religion/ideology or whatever, we join them so that those people can keep doing whatever it is they're doing in peace. They're not "our" people, but they are people in trouble and we make it our responsibility to protect them. (I'm not sure of my position on this kind of military action yet).
I feel that we have to first accept that there is evil in the world, and then we have to look at ways to protect ourselves from it.
But part of being a Buddhist is to see that the victims and the aggressors are the same, they all suffer and all seek happiness and they all deserve the same love and compassion. One is not above the other and in fact aggressors (of any sort, not just war) are often some of the most suffering human beings there are on the planet. As a person studying Buddhism, I personally could not join military and go to war swearing to protect my country and my people above all else, because that is the attachment to my people and my country above others. Evil is just another perception of the world, and it seeks to put some people above others, which is not how Buddhism works. All people have the same inherent purity and light, just some people have more grime covering it up. You cannot therefore assume someone's life is worth less than someone else's, which is why you don't harm or kill them. Their life has as much value as yours, or your children's.
But it seems like life has been negated and equalized to the point that none of them matter at all which isn't the truth. The idea that we can't protect ourselves from those who would harm us because we're no better than they are negates the importance of all life, because it would mean the destruction of all life. Perhaps I just don't understand your position, but I feel like I do because I used to feel, if not the same way, then something similar.
But I don't view evil as a perception, I view it as a very real and tangible force in the world. That doesn't mean I'm being judgmental or putting myself above others, it's just like me saying books have pages in them or that lemons are sour. Some things are just evil. Or to put it in a less polarized way, some things are just not the truth, and are not conducive to life, love, peace and liberation.
^ Karasti's position is a purely Buddhist position. Noble as it may be, there have been countless times individuals and groups of people have essentially said the same thing (including non-Buddhists), only to learn that in the real world life isn't that rosy.
What happened to the Jews when they didn't fight back? The Cambodians?
I don't pretend to fully understand all of it by any means Part of what the book talks about (as much as I've read of it so far, about 4 chapters) that makes sense to me, is that we THINK we understand what is going on. We think we can categorize stuff, including people and entire countries, into good or evil. But we don't know the causes and conditions, the karma, the genetics, the immense history behind what happens. We assume that we are fighting evil and thus doing something good, but I don't think it's that simple. You can't fight evil with evil. You can't claim that killing innocent people is "worth" the collateral damage to get the big fish. You can't cause harm to a million people just to rid the world of one person.
If people think we (as in the US) jump into wars and conflicts because we are protecting oppressed people, they are sorely wrong. We are protecting OUR interests in doing so. If you look at all the conflicts in the world, some of them extremely serious as far as the # of people affected, we haven't gotten involved other that to issue statements saying "We condemn these actions!" because we have no dog in that fight. We don't get involved because it doesn't affect our interests. We don't get involved in what is happening in Tibet because we don't get anything out of it. In fact we would harm our tenous relationship with China by doing so, so we just issue statements from afar instead of getting involved. Same for many other conflicts that involve the oppression or abuse of peoples. Trying to pretend we do it to fight evil and protect people is just silly, because we don't do it for that reason at all.
What happened to the Jews when they didn't fight back?
That's exactly how I feel about it. So much loss of life, so much tragedy, something as horrific as the holocaust... All that came to an end thanks to the allies and the war.
I wholeheartedly and without hesitation categorize the axis as evil. Why Hitler was such a fuck up wasn't relevant to why we had to stop him. It's interesting from an intellectual point of view, and even for extending our own compassion, but it has nothing to do with what had to happen to end it.
If a person claims to be a Buddhist, shouldn't they be looking at the world, for good or for bad, as a Buddhist? If I could practice all of this, I certainly wouldn't be sitting her chatting with the people here trying to figure it out. I was only sharing what I read in the book and how I understood it. I never claimed to be able to practice it. But I do understand what it means and I do understand that it is POSSIBLE to practice it. Trying to make a claim that fighting fire with fire isn't generally how I understand Buddhists to live their lives.
And I have seen violence inflicted on people I love. I don't live wearing rose colored glasses or anything. But it helps to try to see the world deeper than what is on the surface. We have 2 kids who live across the road from us. They are horribly misbehaving children. They are 15 and 17. They steal, they drink and do drugs, they trespass and vandalize. It's easy to judge them and wonder why they behave so badly. But I also know that their dad is in prison for sexually abusing them. Just because they are behaving badly doesn't mean they don't deserve love and compassion, it doesn't mean they don't deserve understanding and for someone to realize that just like any other human, they are pure love. So is the man who sexually abused them. Am I at a place where I can practice compassion for him as easily as I can the 2 boys he hurt? Heck no. But I understand it's possible, and I understand the logic that he is as pure as they are, as pure as myself, as pure as my children and that for him to cause such harm to his own children he has to have suffered, and be still suffering from horrible things that were done to him, and so on. Seeing war and aggressors is no different. You can fight back without killing.
I don't pretend to fully understand all of it by any means Part of what the book talks about (as much as I've read of it so far, about 4 chapters) that makes sense to me, is that we THINK we understand what is going on. We think we can categorize stuff, including people and entire countries, into good or evil. But we don't know the causes and conditions, the karma, the genetics, the immense history behind what happens. We assume that we are fighting evil and thus doing something good, but I don't think it's that simple. You can't fight evil with evil. You can't claim that killing innocent people is "worth" the collateral damage to get the big fish. You can't cause harm to a million people just to rid the world of one person.
If people think we (as in the US) jump into wars and conflicts because we are protecting oppressed people, they are sorely wrong. We are protecting OUR interests in doing so. If you look at all the conflicts in the world, some of them extremely serious as far as the # of people affected, we haven't gotten involved other that to issue statements saying "We condemn these actions!" because we have no dog in that fight. We don't get involved because it doesn't affect our interests. We don't get involved in what is happening in Tibet because we don't get anything out of it. In fact we would harm our tenous relationship with China by doing so, so we just issue statements from afar instead of getting involved. Same for many other conflicts that involve the oppression or abuse of peoples. Trying to pretend we do it to fight evil and protect people is just silly, because we don't do it for that reason at all.
Well, we didn't intervene in the genocidal situations in Africa, did we? And what happened?
If a person claims to be a Buddhist, shouldn't they be looking at the world, for good or for bad, as a Buddhist? If I could practice all of this, I certainly wouldn't be sitting her chatting with the people here trying to figure it out. I was only sharing what I read in the book and how I understood it. I never claimed to be able to practice it. But I do understand what it means and I do understand that it is POSSIBLE to practice it. Trying to make a claim that fighting fire with fire isn't generally how I understand Buddhists to live their lives.
And I have seen violence inflicted on people I love. I don't live wearing rose colored glasses or anything. But it helps to try to see the world deeper than what is on the surface. We have 2 kids who live across the road from us. They are horribly misbehaving children. They are 15 and 17. They steal, they drink and do drugs, they trespass and vandalize. It's easy to judge them and wonder why they behave so badly. But I also know that their dad is in prison for sexually abusing them. Just because they are behaving badly doesn't mean they don't deserve love and compassion, it doesn't mean they don't deserve understanding and for someone to realize that just like any other human, they are pure love. So is the man who sexually abused them. Am I at a place where I can practice compassion for him as easily as I can the 2 boys he hurt? Heck no. But I understand it's possible, and I understand the logic that he is as pure as they are, as pure as myself, as pure as my children and that for him to cause such harm to his own children he has to have suffered, and be still suffering from horrible things that were done to him, and so on. Seeing war and aggressors is no different. You can fight back without killing.
The way you think doesn't solve problems.
I can prove it.
Go ahead. Gather up all your principles, walk over across the street, use your Buddhist principles to solve the stealing, drinking, taking drugs, trespassing, and vandalizing. Step up to the plate. Do it. Then come back and tell me how that works out for you...and meanwhile how many other people have suffered from their theft and vandalizing.
Buddhism is supposed to be about principles that can be tested and that work. So, go ahead. Practice what you preach. And come back and tell us how it works out for you and others.
I think I'm just looking at the practicality of things, whereas you seem to be exploring the possibilities and that's the reason we're not meshing here. I'm not saying you should be looking at the practicalities, I'm just saying that it's trying to have two different conversations at the same time.
Like I'm talking about milk and you're talking about granola and when you say it's crunchy I'm all like, whaa? And when I say it's runny you're all, whaa?
@RebeccaS The Good War is a collection of memories from those who fought and otherwise were affected directly in the 2nd world war. It's definitely worth a read. It's honest. I agree with what karasti has said. If you decide to be on one side of a war or another, the side you pick usually depends on where you were born. We could go into specific conflicts and debate the justification of mass violence ad infinitum, but you still end up with two people who are the same trying to kill each other for the same reason. The Englishman and the Iraqi and the American and the German and the Afghani and the Russian and the, you name him, are all defending their country in their minds. That is one reason why I don't believe in borders.
...The Englishman and the Iraqi and the American and the German and the Afghani and the Russian and the, you name him, are all defending their country in their minds...
And that is a place where Buddhist principles could be very helpful -- mindful thinking and action.
@Gui, sounds interesting, I'll look it up! Thanks for the recommendation.
Quick note, on the German VS the American, if you can justify the actions of the Nazis based on "they were just doing what they thought was right" you're confusing compassion and ignorance.
It can aid compassion, absolutely, and you can forgive them, but while it is true - they were doing what they thought was right - that doesn't excuse nor justify their actions. What people think is right is wrong most of the time, and just because they think it's right doesn't make it so. Our minds and thoughts are rarely our best guides.
Go ahead. Gather up all your principles, walk over across the street, use your Buddhist principles to solve the stealing, drinking, taking drugs, trespassing, and vandalizing. Step up to the plate. Do it. Then come back and tell me how that works out for you...and meanwhile how many other people have suffered from their theft and vandalizing.
Buddhism is supposed to be about principles that can be tested and that work. So, go ahead. Practice what you preach. And come back and tell us how it works out for you and others.
It may not be easy, and it may not work all the time, but sometimes compassion is an effective strategy. While not specifically Buddhist per se, I think what Julio Diaz did when he was mugged was certainly in line with Buddhist principles, and a perfect example that one doesn't necessarily have to counter violence with violence in order to achieve a positive result.
Quick note, on the German VS the American, if you can justify the actions of the Nazis based on "they were just doing what they thought was right" you're confusing compassion and ignorance.
Go ahead. Gather up all your principles, walk over across the street, use your Buddhist principles to solve the stealing, drinking, taking drugs, trespassing, and vandalizing. Step up to the plate. Do it. Then come back and tell me how that works out for you...and meanwhile how many other people have suffered from their theft and vandalizing.
Buddhism is supposed to be about principles that can be tested and that work. So, go ahead. Practice what you preach. And come back and tell us how it works out for you and others.
It may not be easy, and it may not work all the time, but sometimes compassion is an effective strategy. While not specifically Buddhist per se, I think what Julio Diaz did when he was mugged was certainly in line with Buddhist principles, and a perfect example that one doesn't necessarily have to counter violence with violence in order to achieve a positive result.
Ah, now Jason, you have used a phrase that is very wise and I totally agree with. You put a qualifier on it: "doesn't necessarily have to counter violence with violence in order to achieve a positive result".
We ought to do everything we can to avoid war. War (or other violent actions) ought to be the absolute last resort.
But as a general comment...not a response to your comment, but related...if we simply go back as far as what recently happened in Libya, how many innocent Libyans died while other countries went the diplomatic route for weeks on end? That is the caution. And it is happening again in Syria, where no other countries are rushing into fight, and tens of thousands are suffering and dying. I guess I miss the compassion in that.
I do practice it. Do I expect it will stop all their behavior? No, but it does make a difference for the younger child to know SOMEONE cares about him. His brother is a stronger influence than I am, but the younger of them makes better choices. He's in a youth group where he spends some of his time more constructively and with caring people. We have him over for meals where he talks to us about how his mom is gone at the bar from 2pm until 2am, and how the only thing he has to eat is cold hot dogs. Is it some magic bullet? No. But it does him more good than just calling the cops which then leads to a beating from his mother.
@RebeccaS I think you are right :P Granola and milk, definitely.
@vinlyn I never said we should or shouldn't have gotten involved. I said anyone who thinks the times we have gotten involved thinks we do it because of the evil involved, is not being honest in their thinking. Because the only times we get involved is when it's in our own best interest, not the interest of the oppressed people. People in the US join the military to uphold their beliefs, protect their people, their country. Not to save the world. That's the problem with it. Not that anyone can save the world, but the attachment to YOUR people, YOUR ideals, YOUR country. But turning around and just going to bomb everyone who doesn't live the way they think they should live, isn't the answer either.
@Jason Wasn't that a movie? I think it was The Peaceful Warrior or something with a title similar.
Anyway, while I think that's a great way to approach something like a mugging - possessions are replaceable, I don't think it applies to war where it is life that's at stake. I don't think you can just hand it over like that, it's worth too much.
We ought to do everything we can to avoid war. War (or other violent actions) ought to be the absolute last resort.
It seems to me that voluntarily enlisting in the military, knowing that you could be ordered to kill or take part in killing (since you would be on a warship - possibly massive killing) is setting yourself up for the possibility of a great amount of negative Kharma.
Quick note, on the American VS the Iraqi, if you can justify the actions of the Americans based on "they were just doing what they thought was right" you're confusing compassion and ignorance.
Is this statement true? Or only true depending on where you happened to be born?
Quick note, on the American VS the Iraqi, if you can justify the actions of the Americans based on "they were just doing what they thought was right" you're confusing compassion and ignorance.
Is this statement true? Or only true depending on where you happened to be born?
You're confusing my statement which was based on the grounds of an absolute truth with moral relativism, which is a distortion of my original meaning.
I do practice it. Do I expect it will stop all their behavior? No, but it does make a difference for the younger child to know SOMEONE cares about him. His brother is a stronger influence than I am, but the younger of them makes better choices. He's in a youth group where he spends some of his time more constructively and with caring people. We have him over for meals where he talks to us about how his mom is gone at the bar from 2pm until 2am, and how the only thing he has to eat is cold hot dogs. Is it some magic bullet? No. But it does him more good than just calling the cops which then leads to a beating from his mother.
...
@vinlyn I never said we should or shouldn't have gotten involved. I said anyone who thinks the times we have gotten involved thinks we do it because of the evil involved, is not being honest in their thinking. Because the only times we get involved is when it's in our own best interest, not the interest of the oppressed people. People in the US join the military to uphold their beliefs, protect their people, their country. Not to save the world. That's the problem with it. Not that anyone can save the world, but the attachment to YOUR people, YOUR ideals, YOUR country. But turning around and just going to bomb everyone who doesn't live the way they think they should live, isn't the answer either.
Okay, so your actions, noble as they may be, did or did not stop the theft, trespassing, and vandalism? Simple question. Stop trying to qualify the situation. You either solved the problems or you didn't. But you feel good.
Why do you say something as hyperbolic as, "just going to bomb everyone who doesn't live the way they think they should live"? That is not what we do.
It seems to me that voluntarily enlisting in the military, knowing that you could be ordered to kill or take part in killing (since you would be on a warship - possibly massive killing) is setting yourself up for the possibility of a great amount of negative Kharma.
Of course, that leads to an interesting question. Can one, or should one avoid all negative karma?
Okay, so your actions, noble as they may be, did or did not stop the theft, trespassing, and vandalism? Simple question. Stop trying to qualify the situation. You either solved the problems or you didn't. But you feel good.
It's true. A bad upbringing isn't an excuse for bad behavior, and it's not even a logical one. Many wonderful people come from broken homes and many awful people come from great ones.
It seems to me that voluntarily enlisting in the military, knowing that you could be ordered to kill or take part in killing (since you would be on a warship - possibly massive killing) is setting yourself up for the possibility of a great amount of negative Kharma.
Of course, that leads to an interesting question. Can one, or should one avoid all negative karma?
It depends if you think karma is generated by intention or by action regardless of intention.
Quick note, on the American VS the Iraqi, if you can justify the actions of the Americans based on "they were just doing what they thought was right" you're confusing compassion and ignorance.
Is this statement true? Or only true depending on where you happened to be born?
You're confusing my statement which was based on the grounds of an absolute truth with moral relativism, which is a distortion of my original meaning.
If war weren't what it was, I could get on board with it easier. It would be easy to say that if you can take out the "bad guys" and in effect take on that karma on behalf of the suffering of others as in the story earlier (as opposed to feeling like you are some hero) that would be one thing. But in Iraq where we killed more civilians than we killed insurgents? Where 30% of our troops returning home now suffer mental illness as a result of being involved in the war? Where we left a country that is still unable to care for itself, with still millions and millions of people were displaced? Where they still don't have electricity and people are still malnourished? Where their police forces are still not trained to handle the challenges? Did we really do THEM any good? Or did we do ourselves some good in protecting our oil supply and make a claim that killing Saddam was enough to save their country? We like to tell ourselves we did something to help them, we feel all warm and fuzzy that we killed Saddam and saved the world from a terrorist. But did we really? Do the Iraqis feel that way? Saddam was no prince for sure, and he needed to go. But is the average Iraqi better off today than they were 10 years ago?
@Gui That there is good (things that are conducive to love, liberation and truth) and that there is evil (things that are not conducive to love, liberation and truth). That good and evil aren't a matter of perception, aren't based on where you're from or what you believe, and that they exist outside of those interchangeable factors.
Okay, so your actions, noble as they may be, did or did not stop the theft, trespassing, and vandalism? Simple question. Stop trying to qualify the situation. You either solved the problems or you didn't. But you feel good.
It's true. A bad upbringing isn't an excuse for bad behavior, and it's not even a logical one. Many wonderful people come from broken homes and many awful people come from great ones.
Yes. I often think back to my nephew, who couldn't get (or if he did, couldn't keep) a job. And one day he said to me, "Life is so difficult." And I responded, "Shawn, look around you. The vast majority of people don't have trouble finding a job, or keeping a job. But you do. Why? Because you chose to deal drugs. You put yourself in a position to go to prison...and did for 3 years. You learned your new profession -- cooking -- in prison. How does that look on a resume? And when you lie on an application, get hired, and then get fired, whose actions led to that happening. Yours." Perfect example of karma, but Shawn wanted to blame the world.
@vinlyn Have I fully solved the problem? No, because I am not involved with the older boy. Have I helped alleviate the problem? Yes, because instead of spending nights bored and alone and thus drinking, the younger child is at our house getting positive interaction, spending time with people he knows care about him. Do I pretend I can solve the entire problem of all the abuse and such in his family just by being kind to one child in the family? Of course not, but it's a step in the right direction and it gives some hope to the kid that there IS some good in the world and just maybe he makes the decision to come here instead of to drink and steal. And I don't do it because it makes me feel good. You don't solve the worlds problems with one action. You solve them by taking positive steps where you can and changing one moment at a time.
If war weren't what it was, I could get on board with it easier. It would be easy to say that if you can take out the "bad guys" and in effect take on that karma on behalf of the suffering of others as in the story earlier (as opposed to feeling like you are some hero) that would be one thing. But in Iraq where we killed more civilians than we killed insurgents? Where 30% of our troops returning home now suffer mental illness as a result of being involved in the war? Where we left a country that is still unable to care for itself, with still millions and millions of people were displaced? Where they still don't have electricity and people are still malnourished? Where their police forces are still not trained to handle the challenges? Did we really do THEM any good? Or did we do ourselves some good in protecting our oil supply and make a claim that killing Saddam was enough to save their country? We like to tell ourselves we did something to help them, we feel all warm and fuzzy that we killed Saddam and saved the world from a terrorist. But did we really? Do the Iraqis feel that way? Saddam was no prince for sure, and he needed to go. But is the average Iraqi better off today than they were 10 years ago?
I don't know, and I don't think you really do, either.
@vinlyn Have I fully solved the problem? No, because I am not involved with the older boy. Have I helped alleviate the problem? Yes, because instead of spending nights bored and alone and thus drinking, the younger child is at our house getting positive interaction, spending time with people he knows care about him. Do I pretend I can solve the entire problem of all the abuse and such in his family just by being kind to one child in the family? Of course not, but it's a step in the right direction and it gives some hope to the kid that there IS some good in the world and just maybe he makes the decision to come here instead of to drink and steal. And I don't do it because it makes me feel good. You don't solve the worlds problems with one action. You solve them by taking positive steps where you can and changing one moment at a time.
Perhaps what you should be doing, unpleasant as it can be, is going to Child Protective Services.
@Gui That there is good (things that are conducive to love, liberation and truth) and that there is evil (things that are not conducive to love, liberation and truth). That good and evil aren't a matter of perception, aren't based on where you're from or what you believe, and that they exist outside of those interchangeable factors.
I agree. But do you see nazi aggression as evil and american aggression as good? I might have read something into your posts that wasn't there. Or confused someone else's sentiments with yours.
Comments
I was saying that I disagree that buddhism does not have morality without Precepts. I feel that morality is "built-in" at a more foundational level and the precepts are a contextual expression or extrapolation of that morality.
Concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (vipassana) are also important pieces, but since each person is different and in a different position in life, their understanding, application, and balance of all three tools will be different.
Yes, it potentially conflicts with certain aspects of Buddhism. That said, the Buddha never forbade soldiers, even those actively engaged in warfare, from being lay-followers; although he certainly didn't approve of their actions, either. The Buddha, much like the Jains, stressed the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness. The main purpose of warfare is to kill others, and the Buddha was clearly of the opinion that killing rarely benefits anyone, if ever. Nevertheless, it all comes down to intention; and if your intention isn't to harm but to protect others, I see less of a problem in it. In addition, I suggest checking out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "Getting the Message" and Major General Ananda Weerasekera's essay "Buddhism & The Soldier" for two different perspectives on this issue.
Personally, I don't see how someone could possibly try to kill a complete stranger who's done no harm to him without a fair amount of brainwashing.
Anyhow, I read something this morning in a book Lama Dorjee gave us at last weekends retreat and wanted to share it here.
The book is "Change of Heart: The Bodhisattva Peace Training of Chagdud Tulku"
"Similarly, in the area of world peace, we all wish to protect those ravaged by war, yet those who wage war will eventually experience the negative consequences of their actions. Because of the aggressors' power and arrogance, and the terrible suffering they inflict, it may be hard to feel compassion for them. Nonetheless, we need to hold war makers and victims both in the same compassionate embrace. Wars happen because of attachment to one own's country and ideology. If the leader of a nation decides to go to war, people on both sides of the conflict will die. His responsibility for many deaths, or even just one or two, will have serious karmic consequences."
Basically unless you go to war with the idea that you are willing to give your life for the protection of everyone (not just your people, your army, your government, your religion etc) you are going for the wrong reasons. That means if you go to war in Afghanistan, you must be as willing to die to protect an Afghani rebel as you are to protect your own general. This goes against the very grain of what they teach in the military. You protect your own, you protect your country against seen enemies. You certainly don't feel compassion for the enemy. (according to the book)
@Karasti I think that's the Doctors Without Borders ethos? They just go and help the injured, whoever they are if I remember correctly. Really cool.
But there are wars that we join to protect people who aren't necessarily of our religion/ideology or whatever, we join them so that those people can keep doing whatever it is they're doing in peace. They're not "our" people, but they are people in trouble and we make it our responsibility to protect them. (I'm not sure of my position on this kind of military action yet).
I feel that we have to first accept that there is evil in the world, and then we have to look at ways to protect ourselves from it.
But I don't view evil as a perception, I view it as a very real and tangible force in the world. That doesn't mean I'm being judgmental or putting myself above others, it's just like me saying books have pages in them or that lemons are sour. Some things are just evil. Or to put it in a less polarized way, some things are just not the truth, and are not conducive to life, love, peace and liberation.
What happened to the Jews when they didn't fight back? The Cambodians?
If people think we (as in the US) jump into wars and conflicts because we are protecting oppressed people, they are sorely wrong. We are protecting OUR interests in doing so. If you look at all the conflicts in the world, some of them extremely serious as far as the # of people affected, we haven't gotten involved other that to issue statements saying "We condemn these actions!" because we have no dog in that fight. We don't get involved because it doesn't affect our interests. We don't get involved in what is happening in Tibet because we don't get anything out of it. In fact we would harm our tenous relationship with China by doing so, so we just issue statements from afar instead of getting involved. Same for many other conflicts that involve the oppression or abuse of peoples. Trying to pretend we do it to fight evil and protect people is just silly, because we don't do it for that reason at all.
I wholeheartedly and without hesitation categorize the axis as evil. Why Hitler was such a fuck up wasn't relevant to why we had to stop him. It's interesting from an intellectual point of view, and even for extending our own compassion, but it has nothing to do with what had to happen to end it.
And I have seen violence inflicted on people I love. I don't live wearing rose colored glasses or anything. But it helps to try to see the world deeper than what is on the surface. We have 2 kids who live across the road from us. They are horribly misbehaving children. They are 15 and 17. They steal, they drink and do drugs, they trespass and vandalize. It's easy to judge them and wonder why they behave so badly. But I also know that their dad is in prison for sexually abusing them. Just because they are behaving badly doesn't mean they don't deserve love and compassion, it doesn't mean they don't deserve understanding and for someone to realize that just like any other human, they are pure love. So is the man who sexually abused them. Am I at a place where I can practice compassion for him as easily as I can the 2 boys he hurt? Heck no. But I understand it's possible, and I understand the logic that he is as pure as they are, as pure as myself, as pure as my children and that for him to cause such harm to his own children he has to have suffered, and be still suffering from horrible things that were done to him, and so on. Seeing war and aggressors is no different. You can fight back without killing.
I can prove it.
Go ahead. Gather up all your principles, walk over across the street, use your Buddhist principles to solve the stealing, drinking, taking drugs, trespassing, and vandalizing. Step up to the plate. Do it. Then come back and tell me how that works out for you...and meanwhile how many other people have suffered from their theft and vandalizing.
Buddhism is supposed to be about principles that can be tested and that work. So, go ahead. Practice what you preach. And come back and tell us how it works out for you and others.
I think I'm just looking at the practicality of things, whereas you seem to be exploring the possibilities and that's the reason we're not meshing here. I'm not saying you should be looking at the practicalities, I'm just saying that it's trying to have two different conversations at the same time.
Like I'm talking about milk and you're talking about granola and when you say it's crunchy I'm all like, whaa? And when I say it's runny you're all, whaa?
I agree with what karasti has said. If you decide to be on one side of a war or another, the side you pick usually depends on where you were born. We could go into specific conflicts and debate the justification of mass violence ad infinitum, but you still end up with two people who are the same trying to kill each other for the same reason. The Englishman and the Iraqi and the American and the German and the Afghani and the Russian and the, you name him, are all defending their country in their minds. That is one reason why I don't believe in borders.
Quick note, on the German VS the American, if you can justify the actions of the Nazis based on "they were just doing what they thought was right" you're confusing compassion and ignorance.
It can aid compassion, absolutely, and you can forgive them, but while it is true - they were doing what they thought was right - that doesn't excuse nor justify their actions. What people think is right is wrong most of the time, and just because they think it's right doesn't make it so. Our minds and thoughts are rarely our best guides.
:thumbsup:
We ought to do everything we can to avoid war. War (or other violent actions) ought to be the absolute last resort.
But as a general comment...not a response to your comment, but related...if we simply go back as far as what recently happened in Libya, how many innocent Libyans died while other countries went the diplomatic route for weeks on end? That is the caution. And it is happening again in Syria, where no other countries are rushing into fight, and tens of thousands are suffering and dying. I guess I miss the compassion in that.
@RebeccaS I think you are right :P Granola and milk, definitely.
@vinlyn I never said we should or shouldn't have gotten involved. I said anyone who thinks the times we have gotten involved thinks we do it because of the evil involved, is not being honest in their thinking. Because the only times we get involved is when it's in our own best interest, not the interest of the oppressed people. People in the US join the military to uphold their beliefs, protect their people, their country. Not to save the world. That's the problem with it. Not that anyone can save the world, but the attachment to YOUR people, YOUR ideals, YOUR country. But turning around and just going to bomb everyone who doesn't live the way they think they should live, isn't the answer either.
Anyway, while I think that's a great way to approach something like a mugging - possessions are replaceable, I don't think it applies to war where it is life that's at stake. I don't think you can just hand it over like that, it's worth too much. Amen.
Is this statement true? Or only true depending on where you happened to be born?
Why do you say something as hyperbolic as, "just going to bomb everyone who doesn't live the way they think they should live"? That is not what we do.