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.
Buddhism and the soldier
I´ve seen this question before, but not here (e-sangha). Is it possible to be a soldier and still be a Buddhist, thanks 
!
! 0
Comments
But yes, there are other threads here that discuss this.
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3731
Of course, 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.
I suggest checking out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "Getting the Message" (pro-pacifism) and Major General Ananda Weerasekera's essay "Buddhism & The Soldier" (pro-military) for two different perspectives.
One thing is to be a soldier and turn to Buddhism, another is the other way around.
BTW, I think the general´s article is bull. Thanissaro´s essay says "it´s allowed to strike back in self-defence", I would agree but not to much more.
In these times, a world without the military seems not possible, but Afghanistan and Iraq are so controversial that they can hardly be called self-defence.
Amitabha!
Of course. There are no rules other than what you create. You can be a serial killer and be a buddhist.
The question though is this: If you aren't just a Buddhist in name only, but you are actually following a disciplined PRACTICE how long will it be before your practice of waking up conflicts profoundly with your practice of killing people? Not an intellectual conflict, but a deep down internal conflict where it becomes stupendously obvious these 2 practices cannot exist at the same. Attempting to maintain them at the same time leads to intense suffering. A suffering that grows to become unbearable.
One practice will have to be abandoned in order to end the suffering.
This man was a dedicated buddhist and you could tell by just listening to him speak. He meditated daily and had been on retreats and had practiced buddhism for over 3 years if my memory serves me correctly..
Anyway, this man claimed his teacher stated that what he does saves lives as well as takes them, so it is not actually an all round negative issue.
However, you cannot ignore the precepts and every ajahn/monk has their own opinion. You could be a buddhist and go around one day shooting random people in your town, you could be a buddhist but throw your mother off of a cliff... It doesn't mean you are following the precepts too well, but you are still a buddhist if you follow certain aspects, or are you? I got into a heated discussion on this forum actually about just this, so we should leave that alone.
Personally, I think if you kill people you should expect the negative kamma such as guilt, suffering for you and the others around you/the person you killed. I would never go into war and kill people and especially the war that is taking place right now, it is a silly little war but who am I to judge...
Never kill when a maiming will do.
Never maim when a broken bone will do.
Never break a bone when a joint lock will do.
Never lock a joint when an evasion/block will do.
Never block/evade when a word will do.
Never a word when forethought will do.
There is an episode of Kung Fu that gives a similar list.
I also follow the "fighting as last resort" martial art creed.
A dying creed for many of the blood hungry modern mma.
(it is not the technique or the competition, it is the attitude).
One can still practice the same techniques and remain a pacifist / self defense martial artist.
Where? Omigosh where?! :P
I'm training with a shaolin-offshoot school (though I've not been for a while).
All in China. Some with Genuine Shaolin Monks teaching.
In a place called Feng Deng.
Prices are about $440 per month including food / accommodation / tuition.
San Shou / San da is like modern mixed martial art, cross between kung fu kickboxing and Judo style throws / sweeps. No ground fighting like Brazilian Jiu Jutsu / Judo / Sambo etc.
This may not be your thing, so, tradition Kung Fu also taught.
See Stephen K. Hayes of Toshindo and Bujinkan.
http://www.skhquest.com/
This is his main site.
Although think the server is presently off line.
I am sure that the server will be online some time later.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Dayton-OH/Stephen-K-Hayes/91837599326?ref=sgm
Sherab, I´m going to read that article again. Dalai Lama endorses WWII, but not a Tibetan liberation war. A lot could be discussed about that issue.
Why the need for such extreme examples, you guys? I´m a Buddhist and aesthetics are not a part of my life?
One reason for my thread is this. Example, the British Gurkhas. They hail from Nepal and are Buddhists. They are recruited as soldiers. Maybe I´m naive, but they are respected in Britain and also in their homecountry. What about them? They´re not condemned by other Buddhists. Why do they seem Ok with what they do? They look at it as work.
I don´t have the link here, but I read an article by Lama Yeshe when he said that in a conflict, "it´s better that you kill me". Now, who are this brave (no joke intended)? I guess he gets the last word
Just recently, a young Gurkha got into a bit of trouble for hacking the head off a Taliban fighter to take back to barracks for identification purposes. The Afghans believe the body should be left intact. But Gurkhas, may do sky burials, so maybe there was some cultural conflict here?
I also think Gurkhas could possibly be Hindus; though I'm not 100% sure of this.
By the way, I did Aikido for a couple of years and think that its a very good way to chill out, very therapeutic, and very good way to become closer to others.
Although, please keep in mind it is more of an art/religion than a martial art.
Even though its origins are in Traditional Battle field Aiki-JuJutsu (among others).
Most of the lethal techniques have been taken out in order to make it therapeutic worship rather than effective.
Not that the techniques are rubbish, they are good but the way they are trained is different to a combat or sport martial art.
As for Soldier. I guess every one can be a Buddhist, However, I imagine that some lively hoods as well as living circumstances are more favorable for those wishing to pursue a karma free life than others.
No disrespect meant to any one in armed forces, as I understand that the issues involved are complex in nature and that it is hard for an outsider (such as myself) to fully understand what is entailed.
A government tells you to be all you can be and kill civilians who may be terrorists, maybe you should think about what you're doing.
Due to our past karma, we end up in all kinds of situations in this life. But Buddhism, although never encouraging killing, nevertheless opens its door wide to those who have to do so in their jobs due to their earlier life choices before believing in karma and Buddhism. So my opinion is that in such cases, intensify your practice when you are free... and don't feel that one cannot practise just because one is doing such negative acts or such... the inner transformation is the most powerful... the power of a sincere heart and diligent practice can overcome many obstacles.
If you have killed alot, i suggest you perform the practice of liberating animal lives and helping others to do it. Also, it is good to perform the recitation of purification practices like Vajrasattva, 35 Buddhas, prostrations... you can also commission tsa-tsas or statues of Buddhas to be built. Also, things like making offerings to monks/nuns. In your job, you can keep reciting OM MANI PADMAY HUNG in the hearing of the animals... as a way to bless all the animals so that they will take a better rebirth.
There is a website http://www.mahakaruna.com/akshobhya.html set up by the late Chagdud Tulku where one can commission for prayers to be done to purify misdeeds both for the living or deceased. If one feels that one has done a lot of negative deeds, and can't help it, then one can commission these prayers to be done. it is not very expensive and definitely very powerful for purification.
As karma ripens anytime and anyday, it is important to try one's best to purify. Rather than feeling all kinds of negative emotions, it is better to take some definite actions to save the situation and uplift oneself.
Reading that reminds me of interviews given by the late Harry Patch, who was one of the last surviving veterians of WWI, in which he states that he would aim for the enemies legs, due to his Christian faith and the belief in the commandment "thou shall not kill"
That only happens in films; when you shoot you always aim for the centre of the mass; you lessen your chances of scoring a hit otherwise, which increases the risk of your enemy surviving and you or your comrades risk of dying.
And even when aiming for centre of the mass, the round may go elsewhere; shooting under the pressure of combat isn't like a nice day on the firing ranges; lungs are panting and hearts are beating; it doesn't make for accurate shooting.
If you shoot, you mean to kill; full stop.
Anyway, I don't know how it would look on a karmic-scale, etc, but if I was ever in a situation where it was kill or be killed - I think I'd fight. I was watching a movie last night which featured similar sentiments as in this thread (Tomorrow When the War Began), and even though it's slightly corny in the movie, there's a couple of mini-speeches about faith and killing, and survival.
Tosh: You´re probably right. Difficult to shoot in the leg.
Gurkhas are bonafide Buddhists, but they may fall in to the category of not-so-serious Buddhists (some elements of Hindu tradition in Nepal). I guess like most Christians that visit church only at Christmas.
Harry Patch understood the true horror of war and refused to glorify it. Like many another soldier, he expressed deep contempt for the political 'masters'. He also understood that, when a person has shed another's blood and, possibly, ended their life, they will carry that for the rest of their lives. He certainly did, despite the fact that, as has now been calculated, he was among the majority in the trenches who fired above the heads of the 'enemy'.
So-called 'primitive' peoples understood this too and, as Frazer describes, some peoples are so aware of it that they have specific cleansing rituals for returning soldiers. Traces of this are still around in the church and cathedral services after wars. As Henry V says, in Shakespeare's play "Now let there be sung Te Deum and Non Nobis."
I agree. I spent 17 years in the army and have had friends who've suffered with post traumatic stress syndrome because of their actions. A friend of mine's young son was a Warrior gunner during the Iraq war. He was 20 years old and killed somewhere between 11 and 15 people. He's a few years older now, and is going off the rails. He's been caught drink driving twice; he should've went to prison; but escaped detention due to his war record.
I was luckily enough to have never killed anyone, but I've seen the carnage of war; I was one of the first troops down the Basra Road during Gulf War 1 after the Apache helecopters had been doing their 'turkey shoot' at fleeing Iraqi soldiers. It wasn't pretty. Many soldiers who had to clean up the mess and bag the bodies and the body parts suffered with post traumatic stress syndrome too.
I've also spent many years in Northern Ireland, during The Troubles, and served in both Bosnia and Kosovo; neither of which were nice places at the time.
And more soldiers who served in the Falklands war have committed suicide since, than were actually killed during the conflict; now there's a thought. I heard stories of Argentinian ears getting cut off and young Paras - after the conflict - showing off vinegar jars of ears around Aldershot pubs. I wonder how they feel about that now?
And although I've never killed, I've done a few things which I'm deeply ashamed of; I guess that's why I'm developing an interest in Buddhism.
Pain is the touchstone of growth, as they say; that's true in my case.
How can one "be a Buddhist" but "not that serious?"
And defending one's country is feeling pride and honor in being the citizen of a geographical area that one was randomly born in. Would you support defending your given name with guns?
All the ideals of "honor" and "patriotism" that are used to justify "defending the country" are just constructed concepts whose meanings are ascribed by certain sets of individuals - usually those in power and who have interests in waging war.
To paraphrase Nietzsche: those who have power should be the most merciful, as exercising punishment is a display of weakness. Those who are powerful need not "defend" themselves by attacking/punishing others, as their power should be sufficient to withstand the blows of lesser parties.
Anyways, to bring this back to Buddhism:
I think that "defending one's country" in the name of "patriotism" is not just an issue about killing. There's also the issue of karma - is it positive or negative karma to join a nation's (an impermanent entity that is ascribed permanence through social construction) war machine (an entity that is designed to kill, even if one personally has not killed)?
It seems that joining the military (other than for financial reasons) implies that one supports the continuation of exercising dominance and warfare over others, as well as believing in a level of permanence of one's nation-state
Invincible,
Whilst I particularly agree with your analysis of the dangers of patriotism, I must add some nuance to your picture of the reasons people join the military.
Your view that "joining the military (other than for financial reasons) implies that one supports the continuation of exercising dominance and warfare over others" used to be mine until I met a man, some 15 years ago, on a singing workshop, a gentle and kind person with a wonderful voice and sense of humour. It turned out that, after a Catholic schooling, he went to Sandhurst and on into the army, where he had seen service, gained promotions and compoeted his contracted time. "After that," he told me, "I retrained as a priest." I was surprised and asked him what linked his two careers. "A passionate desire for justice," was his reply. I was stunned. Not a financial or a nationalistic motive.
One of my contemporaries joined the Royal Horse Artillery because it was about the only way he could find to work with horses. He even refused promotion beyond Farrier because he would lose his daily contact with the animals. Another motive.
Certainly, today, when we are engaged in the longest war that the US has even launched, joining the armed forces automatically implies either direct or supporting roles in the fighting. Nevertheless, I try to bear in mind that Buddhism challenges us to confront the paradox that intention presents. If the crucial component of kamma is that it is intentional action, if that intention accords with the Noble Eightfold Path and the Precepts as the intender understands them and applies them in their own lives can we condemn or criticise?
I would generally prefer to have armed forces where the individuals understand that, even on the battlefield, compassion and wisdom are still their drivers, and whose true aim is the earliest possible return to peace.
Buddhism aside, it makes sense to always treat your enemy with respect and compassion on the battlefield.
Why? An enemy who knows that if he surrenders will be treated with medical care, three meals a day, a warm bed, and if not kindness at least he knows he will not be maltreated, will surrender a lot quicker and easier than if he knows he is possibly going to be killed or treated badly.
And wouldn't defending your country against invading forces - depending on their intent - be the correct thing to do if it means you're preventing harm? Wouldn't this be the right view?
Since as Buddhists, we "see" beyond borders. The fight should be for something that transcends nationality, and the war against Taliban and Al-Qaida (to take a modern day example) is justified, in that it is a threat against civilians and democracy, the things we must protect in order to live as citizens of a peaceful society.
If it´s justified to be a soldier, it must be seen in the context of the war. The two most debated wars nowadays are Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush government handled this matter in a very unprofessional way, anyone can tell. Though they had to find proof against the perpetrator. Some even say Al-Qaida is innocent. It just makes it look America is the aggressor. But these wars are as justified as WWII. It´s not about patriotism, it´s about the need to defend oneself against a threat against your very safety and security to live a life (and be a Buddhist).
Who attacked who? It seems that the two sides think they got attacked in the same way, so who started it? I see no problem with the Americans defending themselves against this threat against their safety. The rest of us are bound by Nato. My own country did´nt get threatened until we joined the US by way of Nato. So we are threatened, should´nt we get to defend ourselves? Bin Laden is getting awfully close.
The bottom line may be that it´s not cool being a soldier, but emergency teaches a naked woman how to sow.
It is possible for a soldier to practice Buddhist meditation. It would be a difficult path, though. You'd get to work with the hell realm a lot.