Buddhism's contributions to war
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
This may be a bit freighted and obscure to some, but here is the latest article by Brian Victoria, a Zen Buddhist monk and college teacher who has done a number of well-researched pieces on the links between Zen Buddhist teachers and Japanese militarism. Most notably, perhaps, Brian is the author of "Zen at War," a book that lays the foundation for many of his subsequent articles which challenge the view of a pure-as-the-driven-snow Buddhism with its carefully-ignored or artfully-camouflaged precept against killing.
Not to put too sharp a point on it, Brian has pissed off a number of people inclined to see Zen (and more broadly religion in general) as ethereally aloof and beyond reproach. It is not the off-pissing qualities that incline me to post the article (though I will admit I am a fan of bad boys who know how to think), but rather the inclination of many students to imagine that their persuasion and their practice and their lineage is flawless... a dangerous, not to mention wrong-headed, assumption.
As I say, the article may be too murky for some, but I thought for those with the patience, it might be interesting.
Comments
I do not hate war and conflict, aggression and hostile combat because I am Buddhist; I hate them because I am a human being that abhors violence of any kind.
Jut as I do not hate misogynism because I am Buddhist (Buddhism is replete with such qualities in some sectors); I hate it because it's grossly unfair.
I apologise; I didn't read the article. I began to (and may try to continue to do so, in time) so I'm really, just responding to your penultimate comment, @genkaku ....
@genkaku
I have watched many see their faith as the degree to which they believe in their religion.
Any questioning of any part of that religion is a direct challenge to their identity.
I think this is more of a compounding & hardening of the complexity of their own karmic
inheritance where as by simply treating their religious form as no different than any other arising and passing phenomena, they might of actually been able to resolve some of it.
@how -- It's not entirely clear to me what you are saying, but my take is that failure to acknowledge a complicity of action and/or complicity of mind can muddy an otherwise good practice. Specifics count, however dreary and messy they may be. Sending soldiers to war with a Buddhist blessing is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
In what way is this matter of interest to you @genkaku?
For me delwing into the darker side of Buddhism was a way to face my doubts and fears. I think it is the same for you? No?
I admit I didn't read the whole article. It is just too long and the topic of military history, Japan and Zen just isn't enough interest to me for me to read the entire thing. But, I read through pieces of it and I read the conclusion and the bit before that.
I'm not sure how he thinks we western Buddhists should react. I'm not sure now is the time for it to change. I would like to see it change. But I don't think, as a society, we are there yet. War is so very engrained in the US political and societal scenes that I think people are as willing to give up war as they are to give up their guns or their cars or their big screen tvs. As the saying goes, I think war will have to be wrested from their cold dead hands. It seems like that there is a shifting point for societal consciousness where people become more open to certain conversations, whether about race relations or gay people or whatever. Where people are willing to have a conversation and to listen while 20 years ago they were not. I don't think we are there yet with regards to war...and it's frightening to think what will have to happen before we get there.
I most certainly don't agree with using any wisdom teachings, Buddhism or otherwise, to justify and bless war. But I'm not sure that simply being a Buddhist in the US means I am doing so or allowing it to happen. I try to live Buddhist teachings as well as I am capable, and right now that seems about best I can do. I try to use them to guide my family, especially my children. My oldest son is going into the aerospace industry. I've talked to him much about making choices that help humanity and not choices that hurt. It's difficult, because the draw of a big salary is always so important to young people just starting out...and in that industry most of the money comes from contractors to the US government like Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. He's been interested in the military since he was a very young child but (thankfully) cannot join. But as much as I talk to him about making those choices, it is still his decision. Despite his stubborn teenage-hood, I hope that some of what we have discussed sticks with him as he makes these choices. We will continue to talk. Not sure what else I can do.
It's always interesting to me when people say "You need to know this so you can do something about it" yet they never have suggestions for how to do so. I was always taught that if you feel a need to bring up a problem, then you should bring at least one suggested solution to the table as well. Some people like to bring awareness to an issue...and then leave it at the door. Simply telling people information, IMO, is not enough. I'd like to hear what he thinks we should be doing. But perhaps that is elsewhere in the article.
@victorious -- It interests me, I suppose, since I have spent a number of years being interested in and reaping nourishment from what might be called spiritual life. There are, from where I sit, some very useful and healing things to be learned from such practices ... or anyway, I think so. But I also think that unexamined praise of the spiritual adventure is demeaning to that adventure in the same way that papering over personal difficulties can bar any honest healing or happiness or peace. Put less politely, perhaps, there is no such thing as something so good that it cannot be used for some pretty twisted purposes. Failure to acknowledge such concrete potentialities reduces spiritual growth and satisfaction to a kind of smarmy wonder which is as corrupt as it can be popular. But I agree with you that such an issue is entirely personal: Frankly, I have had enough of my own capacity to don rose colored glasses.
@karasti -- Yours is a fair and appropriate question: What the hell is anyone supposed to do with the information presented? I agree: Bring a solution to the table.
But I think too that before anyone starts fishing for solutions, the first thing to do is to address and investigate the problem. This, as I take it, is something Brian Victoria is trying to do -- to offer concrete examples of flaws and fabrications. It's a bit depressing, not least because people coming to spiritual life often do so with hope for some relief from the unsatisfactoriness they may have encountered. No one ever signed on to a Buddhist practice -- or even just a belief system -- because they were so damned happy. And bit by bit, a Buddhist practice can prove itself worthy of the trust and faith invested in it. Bit by bit the willingness to move forward is strengthened ... if it proved itself in past practice, I begin to think it will prove itself useful and praise-worthy in future. Put briefly, my credulity thermometer goes up together with a sense of gratitude. OK.
And it is in this arena that not only can spiritual growth be nourished, but spiritual corruption can likewise flourish. Perhaps the teacher gains a glow of infallibility. Perhaps the lineage goes "all the way back to the Buddha." Perhaps the tales that are told are no longer items to investigate thoroughly, but matters of abject credulity that can inspire some pretty corrupt action.
Well, I'm talking too much and saying too little. Basically, I think you are right and a solution deserves to be posited. My own is not much to write home about: Acknowledge and integrate the corruptions that can hide behind a too-credulous outlook and then move forward with a determination that does not sweep corruption or the potential for it, under the carpet. Skip the hagiographies that can adorn spiritual life and camouflage the pain inflicted on others.
Basically ... well, a little (real) humility never hurt anyone. No need to wallow in the bad stuff as a means of asserting a smug purity. And no need to wallow in the good stuff as a means of elevating or burnishing some spiritual star.
Sorry ... it ain't much, but it's what I've got.
As an extremely angry and aggressive person I would rather utilise than deny.
Warriors are not excluded from overcoming ignorance. The question is not whether this is part of predominantly the male hormonal mind/body complex but where can we find skilful transformation.
Overcoming or resolving:
Today I put on my bone mala. The teachings of wrathful Buddhism: advanced stuff. Protect the monks, 'my little pony' dharma and tread carefully ...
Since sensual pursuits are whetted by compassion,
the pleasure of pure mind is enacted in them all;
butchers, whores and taboo-breakers,
unspeakable sinners and outcastes,
all can know nothing but pure pleasure
through inclusive perfection, the nondual elixir.
http://www.keithdowman.net/dzogchen/eyeofthestorm.htm
@genkaku
Simple delusion is that delusion which can allow one to track suffering back to it's cause.
Compounded delusion is delusion made more complex when something obstructs ones ability to track suffering back to it's true cause.
In a culture, as in a Sangha, that something is often blind devotional leanings or the acceptance of a policy that equates the questioning of any authority's understanding as the evidence of ones own failure in ones practice. This allowed cultural Zen in Japan to remain as blameless for it's misuses just as it has for many Zen Sangha's today that have remained silent about their own teachers perceptual breakages.
@genkaku I always appreciate what you have to say
I agree, we do need to acknowledge the problems in our belief set. It does not good to turn a blind eye and pretend our religion has no problems or no negative history.
I read somewhere (it was a while ago, I couldn't tell you where it was) that some person evaluating the major world religions concluded that Buddhism is the only major religion to maintain it's roots. That it has always stuck to it's core beliefs. I don't recall what that is based on, and I don't know if the author had knowledge of the things like you posted about, or the monks in Myanmar and so on. But as a whole, Buddhism seems to do pretty well and enjoys a positive opinion from most people. Even though there are these events that show it's no more perfect than any other religion, I think that is a good thing. But I hope that people don't just up and leave their religion for Buddhism and then become disenchanted over the errors committed in its name. Religion is one thing. It's members are another. All humans full of mistakes and incorrect views and unskillful means.
I think there are a lot of naive "Western Buddhists" who are enthralled with (to use a mixed metaphor) "kumbaya Buddhism". They have a tiny Buddhist environment of their own that they feel represents "real Buddhism". If they look at larger Buddhist cultures (as in nations which are predominantly Buddhist) at all, they look down on those nations as not really representing Buddhism at all, and most of the individuals as not being "real" Buddhists. They look at Buddhist scriptures as if they existed all these centuries in a vacuum. They probably have never delved into the Buddhist history of places like Thailand and Burma and are unaware of the violent history of Buddhist cultures in the "Old World". If they did, they would find that life was (and continues to be) "messy".
Were it not for the "divine right kings" of Thailand and Burma back in the 1100s and beyond, who adopted Buddhism as preached by "Indian" missionaries (mostly sent to Southeast Asia by King Ashoka), the images of Buddhism so common and intriguing to many Westerners who, over the years, have visited Thailand and other areas of Southeast Asia, would never have taken place. In such places, Westerners experienced the peacefulness of Buddhist temples, mostly not realizing the succession of wars that went on between (for example) Siam and Burma...Buddhist king versus Buddhist king...where tens of thousands of Buddhists were killed or enslaved by other Buddhists (back and forth, both ways), all the time destroying the other country's Buddhist temples, while still glorifying their own Buddhist temples.
It has often been said that "no war has ever been fought in the name of Buddha", which may be somewhat true. But there have certainly been many wars fought by Buddhists.
Buddhism is no more free from its inconsistencies than any other religion. Which is why it is my belief that real religion is within the mind of each practitioner, rather than in the culture of a group of people who see only what they want to see.
That's just my take on it. You may feel differently.
The Buddha waged war on ignorance, he's won (and is still winning) many battles but the war is yet to be won....
Yes always good to see things as they are.
But in such studies it is healthy to keep in mind that the idiocy of other people does not subtract from your own practice and own skillful action.
This is how it is:
People act unskillfully or skillfully not "religions" or "philosophies" which are just made up concepts.
/Victor
That's what he said.
"Which is why it is my belief that real religion is within the mind of each practitioner, rather than in the culture of a group of people who see only what they want to see."
The problem is that people are drawn to their own tendencies, whether through denial or collusion.
However we can focus on the useful. Zen Sangha supporting ruling Samurai class became better generals and 'finer' warriors. Naughty Dharma or just ignorance? Was it really useful or just promotion of preference?
Integrity as many have said allows us to 'cherry pick' dharma.
I try not to collude with drunk or abusive Rinpoches, crazed iconoclastic Zeniths or the Buddha's personal inadequacies and ignorance. I apply the same standards to my useless self, often not well enough.
Christ Be with Us
[time to declare war on Mr Cushion] 
So the Samurai were the original Secular Buddhists?
Err I know? That is why I quoted him. What is your point?
Because you didn't sound as if you were agreeing with him.It 'sounded' like you were posting a different PoV.
My bad.
In my expert opinion. @vinlyn is not always wrong... lol.
It'll do for me.
I would suggest that washing our Rukusa or underwear in public, wearing a fruit bowl on our head, pan handling and Jihad on Pearl Harbour is all part of a rich cultural heritage. I for one find affiliation as anti-spiritual as Christians suing 'sinful' homosexuals. Do I take refuge in the fruit bowl or the three jewels idealised? My choice.
... and now back to the front line ...
I don't think that is the case personally. It isn't the religion that is flawed, it's human beings that are flawed. "Buddhism" and "Buddhist people" are two completely different things.
@seeker242, that's what he said....!
Good points, @vinlyn
@genkaku and @Victorious
In relation to the article at hand, are we really seeing things "as they are" by reading the perceptions and opinions of others? I think about that sometimes. Even so-called historical facts are filled with bias and opinion and interpretation and when we read something and take it as our opinion is it really us seeing things as they are? When I was in school and learned about particular aspects of American history, and world history, we were not fully told the truth. We were told stories from the patriotic aspect of the authors chosen by our school district. Later, I learned that others had vastly different perceptions. And they would go back and forth over how the other was incorrect. So which perception do we go with and assume is the right one, especially considering history that none of us where there to observe? How to decipher it all to arrive at what my beliefs about it really are? I'd think I was set on what I believed happened, and then that apple cart would be entirely upset. Rocked my boat to tip on the other side and then I was siding with the other group. Arriving to a place where the boat was steadily in the middle was (and still is) difficult. Usually history is told from extremes of one side or the other and both sides see the other as the aggressor. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle but we have to decide for ourselves where that is, and it may or may not be accurate.
For example, in school I learned that the US was great, that so much was done by early people to settle the land so I could live the life I had now. That I should be grateful to those of the past and all they had done and that America is the best place on earth! Wars might have been bad, but they were never presented as such. They were presented as us doing what we had to do to survive and save our way of life, and that it was wonderful and honorable. That Indians were savages who stood in the way of our progress and that we did great things for them by giving them their own land on reservations so we could all live together. I bought it, for the most part. It was all I knew and I didn't know how to find other answers.
It wasn't until college I learned much more of the other side of the story. Thanks to teachers willing to teach the other side and the internet becoming available my boat tipped to the other side. Everything the settlers had done was completely horrible and wrong and everything Native Americans did was earth-loving and friendly and they were only fighting back because we showed up and took their land and culture and way of life.
In both cases, I adopted the opinion of the person on whichever side I was learning about. In neither case was it "seeing things as they really are."
Good points @karasti. I do think there is something to be said for making the best possible judgment based on the preponderance of evidence. All language and argumentation is by nature skewed, but we don't quibble with the wailing mother who holds her dead child in her arms after the drone attack (whoever launched it) is past. In the news, with its 'broader' view, this is "collateral damage," but there is often a judgment call in the human gut: There is no excuse that trumps the apostasy of killing children... or anyway, that's my biased take.
Yup, it's a judgment call. Yup, there is no one way to accurately assess. But there is the capacity you demonstrated in acknowledging a wider net. It may never be wide enough (relativism alert!), but where there is light without shadow/shadow without light, there is a lack of humanity and a lack of realism.
As I say, a little humility never hurt anyone. And obviously this is just my bias.
Relying on the opinion of others is in my opinion not the right path. It is simply the opposite of what the kalamasutta teaches. There are many other reasons but nuff' said.
Nobody can deduce that one or the other opinion is the correct one. In the same way it is not possible to state that any opinion is more false than any other if not in the mind of individuals.
That is simply the imposition of the anatta doctrine.
So that leaves us able to choose the opinion that leads to the most benefit for oneself and others knowing that that opinion is as valid as any other opinion running about.
So faced with a decision to adopt a stance it is best to take the one most beneficial to the most people as far as I can understand. IMO.
And not worry to much. Because it is not possible to see things as they really are better than that.
freely follow this fellows foolproof findings.
.
...or not.
/Victor
I've always been a big consumer of information. I love to read, and I love to learn. But it wasn't until I started practicing Buddhism that I started asking which information was truly valuable in such a way that it can be used to help people. Is learning information just for the sake of learning a waste of time if the information discovered/learned cannot be used to help someone today? I haven't figured that out as far as what I think about it, but your post reminded me of those thoughts I've had, @Victorious.
Is someone who studies, say, Russian Literature helping the world in any way? What about ancient history? Anthropology? Mythology? I'm not saying those things (and others) cannot be used to help people. I'm just saying, when we choose a field of study, can every single one of them be used to better the planet? Should they be? Or is there value in learning just for the sake of learning? Most of my classes in college were not of any value to have helped anyone or directly allowed me to help anyone. Perhaps some of the skills I learned while in college can be used that way, but not the information learned itself. So what value is in cramming our heads full of information that we can't actually use to help anyone?
What is "the religion"?
Which branch?
Buddhism. All of them. They all have the same "no killing, no stealing" etc.
So if "they all have the same..." why are there different branches?
Why do they all exist in countries that have shown their proclivity to war until they are restrained by other forces?
It comes down to the same question our math teachers often expressed about our kinds: "I taught it, they didn't learn it." In the case of the math teachers, was it the fault of the kids (which the teachers implied) or the teachers (which the students and parents implied), or both? If broad groups of Buddhists are not learning the concepts well, is it wholly the individual's fault? Or faulty teaching by the Buddhist authorities? Or both? Part of the answer may come down to what one (this is a general question, not one specifically to you) thinks the responsibility of a monk is.
Information is not the culprit. How one attaches to it is.
I find that is what the Dependent Origination teaches.
In the middle of the media stream it is difficult to sort out what is ones own thoughts and what is not. It takes 3-5 days of total media deprivation before you can form a thought or impulse that you can be somewhat certain is your own. Have you tried it?
I am very conscious about consuming media. I try to listen to what is said and what is not said and then again who says it and why. Don't you find it a little bit strange that there seems to be no reports of the good things IS does? Is that really objective news reporting?
So it was in the government controlled media in SL during the war. But when entering the rebel controlled parts there were plenty of stories of all the good they (the rebels) had done.
All opinion is biased. If you forget that even for an instant then ignorance takes hold.
/Victor
What I meant is all the sects have the same 5 precepts to follow. I personally don't think broad groups of Buddhists are not learning the concepts well. I'm quite confident that most every Buddhist knows your not supposed to go around war-mongering!
To use the teaching example, if a math teacher teaches a class and 95% of the kids get As and Bs, and a couple of kids completely flunk. I think it's safe to say that it's not the teachers fault. I don't think anyone would accuse a teacher of teaching improperly when 95%, or more, of the students are getting As and Bs.
With regards to the % of Buddhists who warmonger, the % is extraordinarily small when you look at the total number of Buddhists worldwide throughout history.
The math teacher example I was giving was actually a teacher who consistently had approximately 40% of her classes getting Ds and Fs, while the other math teachers with similar kids had a D/F ratio of more like 8%. And this was consistent over several years. And, in standardized testing, this particular teacher's students had the lowest pass rate. As they say, do the math.
I suggest you read the history of Siam and Burma.
I don't see how the history of siam and burma is relevant to what the Buddha taught. Although, even if all the Buddhists in siam and burma were total war mongers, it would still be a very small percentage of Buddhists making war in total. And because Buddhist practitioners are not Buddhas themselves, a small % of them doing wrong action is not really something to be surprised about IMO. In fact, I think one could argue that it's something to be expected. Some people might have this idea that Buddhist people are perfect simply because they are Buddhist. Maybe this is the audience that the writer is speaking to. But, this idea that Buddhist people are prefect, is really quite ridiculous to begin with. History has proven that they aren't.
However, to attribute this failing of Buddhist people to the Buddha's teaching itself, I think this is a huge mistake! If you look at just the scriptures and the scriptures alone, no where can you find any condoning of war or killing. In this respect, the Buddha's teaching is "pure as the driven snow". Human beings obviously aren't pure. If they were, they wouldn't even need the Buddha's teaching to begin with. I think it's clear that all the Buddhist people who have promoted war and killing are doing the opposite of what the Buddha actually taught and Buddhism actually is.
It's true, of course, that war goes against Buddhist teachings. Where trouble comes in is when people feel the need to protect and defend their beliefs. People feel so strongly about what they believe, that they will go against what they believe to fight someone who they think threatens it. Crazy, but it happens over and over again. We are defensive animals and tend to fight to the death for what we believe in...and in a lot of areas of the world, in the US especially, we find that to be a good quality so it is encouraged.
In my pre-Buddhist days I was a machine-gunner in an Army Reserve infantry battalion, 5 Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment. We specialised in counter insurgency.
In the very unlikely event of being called up now I would have to think about it long and hard. Rather me than somebody younger with a family. That's all I can really say.