Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Is going to war ever ok?

BlackFlagBlackFlag
edited March 2010 in Buddhism Basics
from a buddhist perspective, is going to war ever justified?

Comments

  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited March 2010
    BlackFlag wrote: »
    from a buddhist perspective, is going to war ever justified?

    I think absolutely not. My Sri Lankan Buddhist friends would disagree!:)
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Doesn't HHDL say that self defense is permissible? When you say "going to war", that covers a lot of ground. If you volunteer to be in the military in a capacity in which you would be required to take lives as part of your duty, I'd say probably not. If you were in the military and your nation were attacked, that gets a little greyer to me. Some would argue that what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is "defensive" in nature (I personally disagree).

    But I'd think if you felt compelled to join the military as a Buddhist, you'd want to do so in some capacity such as a doctor or nurse, or perhaps even a Buddhist chaplain! Believe it or not, the US military does have provision for Buddhist chaplains. I queried the headquarters of the Air Force Chaplain Service, and they told me they don't currently have any.

    Mtns
  • satxsatx
    edited March 2010
    Wars of aggression are morally questionable, but the right to self defense is a very basic one.
  • ManiMani Veteran
    edited March 2010
    I don't have an exact quote for reference, perhaps I'll find one, but I think I recall HHDL saying that "violence is never good, as it will just usually only result in more violence." Even a simple negative reaction or emotion towards somebody will result in more negative karma, and a cause for further suffering.

    Kirti Tenshab Rinpoche said that we should "wage war with our inner enemies".

    :)
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited March 2010
    BlackFlag wrote: »
    from a buddhist perspective, is going to war ever justified?

    Who wants to know? Who's telling you? Underlying this question there is probably a projection of family structure onto the world at large.
  • AnupassīAnupassī
    edited March 2010
    The First Precept is "I undertake to refrain from taking life."

    Seems straightforward enough.
  • GrainGrain
    edited March 2010
    On a first level, when someone attacks your country, you're supposed to be in self-defense and do whatever is possible in order to save your home and your people. On a second level, you and your propagandized attacker are nothing more than pawns in the geo-political games the dominant class plays. On a third and more macroscopic level, you're forced to take a human life with all the cosmic consequences followed by such an action. I would refrain and I wish some day I'll be strong enough to fight the survival instinct and say that I'd rather get killed than get to kill.
  • jmhtexasjmhtexas
    edited March 2010
    This question concerns all religions. It's the fundamental conflict between the interests of society and the beliefs of the individual. Self-preservation in the face of violence is justifiable; that doesn't make it right. One must choose whether to fight and perhaps live, or let go and perhaps die. Nations never let go.

    In World War II, a draftee who refused to serve was branded a cowardly contentious objector, and so were soldiers who agreed to serve but would not fight. Yet one brave combat medic, who would not take a life, was awarded the Medal of Honor for saving the lives of almost 100 wounded soldiers. He was called upon to serve his country and he did so without abandoning his beliefs. That's a great example of the middle way.

    So long as we have a volunteer force, most of you will never have to make this awful decision. I hope you never do. And while you may disapprove of those who choose to serve, please remember this... we wouldn't be having this discussion without them.

    Is going to war ever ok? No. Is it ever necessary? Yes. Can it ever be stopped? Someday - when we all reach enlightenment. Keep searching.
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited March 2010
    This is not a matter of "justified" or "unjustified". It's a matter of what karma's you are willing to take on yourself.

    Tibetan Buddhism teaches that every action produces karma. The strength of the karma produced is situational ... i.e., did you plan to do it, did you rejoice in doing it, etc ...

    This applies to good karma too ... losing $20 because you didn't notice it fell out of your pocket onto the sidewalk will not produce the same karma as searching out someone who needs $20, giving them your last $20, and rejoicing over it!

    In the same way, killing an ant because you didn't see it as you stepped on it is not the same as hating someone, planning to kill them, killing them and then rejoicing over it!

    But Tibetan Buddhism teaches that killing, for any reason whatsoever, "justified" or "unjustified", will produce the karmas for killing. The only variable is how strong the resulting karma will be.

    It is wrong to kill, regardless of the rationalization for it.
  • Arya-ShramanArya-Shraman
    edited March 2010
    No.
    without any explanation.Just a simple No.
  • satxsatx
    edited March 2010
    You people disgust me. Cowardice in the face of evil is no moral virtue. To quote Edmund Burke,
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
  • Arya-ShramanArya-Shraman
    edited March 2010
    Hmmm..I see that the above user 'satx' is banned. Was he banned for the above post? If yes then I find it bit harsh.Though I totally respect the choice of moderators. Their place,their power.

    As per the quote "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" is concerned then do we REALLY understand the difference between good and evil?

    and if we do not understand this distinction as yet and still take refuge in situational violence what are we exactly doing? working for goodness of humanity or just fostering our own prejudices ?

    Buddha says in Dhammapada :
    'In this world
    Hate never yet dispelled hate.
    Only love dispels hate.
    This is the law,
    Ancient and inexhaustible.'

    Buddha merely asserts a universal truth that he observed himself. he does not say 'because I think'...'I think it will be..'
    So non violence is not a principle that Buddha declares but a truth that he asserts.

    Now everyone is free for making choices (and people do make their choices as we see a lot of violence).

    The question is do you think that hate or violence is ever going to stop evil? do you think that hate can be dispelled by hate?
    If yes. fair enough. But your kamma will still get you.

    And do not forget the biggest war criminals in the world always thought they were on the side of good and just.Be it Hitler or Laaden.
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited March 2010
    It takes greater moral courage to NOT fight back.

    And it takes much, much more wisdom ... the understanding that there is more than this one life and that Right Action is not always the choice that serves this particular lifetime.

    As for evil, it's like those weeds in my garden ... it's always popping up no matter how much you uproot it. But then, so are the flowers!
  • JaseJase
    edited March 2010
    satx wrote: »
    You people disgust me. Cowardice in the face of evil is no moral virtue. To quote Edmund Burke,
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

    It's not cowardice. Why do people always say that, it makes no sense. The fact is, all violence begets more violence. All violence will have violent karma, whatever the reason.

    When I was a Christian I took Jesus' command to turn the other cheek seriously and other Christians always thought it was silly or something, they said the same thing, 'cowardice,' sometimes. But it's not cowardice at all. It take courage, to know that there is something more than this life, something more important, that morality is not just what we we want - and we all want it to be that we can take revenge or crush those who attack us and make them suffer. NOT doing evil in return for evil takes real faith, trust in something other than our selves. If you believe in God or Jesus, it takes real faith that whatever we suffer will be healed, that we will earn reward by going to heaven. If you don't believe in God it takes courage, too, because it takes great compassion and selflessness to not do evil in return. Someone has to be willing to suffer for the sake of what is good in order to do that. Fighting back is cowardly - "I will hurt them more before they can hurt me."
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited March 2010
    you make good points jase and i'm not disagreeing with you, but
    Fighting back is cowardly - "I will hurt them more before they can hurt me."
    i do not think this is always the rationale of resistance fighters, for one to fight is to be putting your physical safety at great risk, and the cause to resist is often for others besides themselves, their culture, their mother, their father, their friends, their people, their land, etc. and for what all those things stand for. as for me i wouldn't know what to do if such a decision of taking up arms or not had to be made, but right now i believe in nonviolence but you never know. it's hypothetical anyways!
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited March 2010
    BlackFlag wrote: »
    from a buddhist perspective, is going to war ever justified?

    It depends on who you ask, but I would say no. I suggest checking out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "Getting the Message" for one perspective.
Sign In or Register to comment.