[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[curt]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

>Curt wrote
>
>  
>
>>Dan gave one example of a group of Buddhists who chose to surrender
>>rather than fight against Muslim invaders. But as the report clearly
>>shows, there were good reasons for the Buddhists to do so
>>    
>>
>[...]
>  
>
>>Is there perhaps some stronger evidence than this?
>>    
>>
>
>In fact, those reasons didn't quite pan out, and one blaring inconsistency
>in the manner that  Alexander Berzin (the author of the work on that site)
>presents things is that, despite taking that pose of appeasement, Buddhist
>monasteries were subjected to persecutions and destruction. If only Hindus
>offered resistance, why were monasteries punished? Berzin tends to look for
>explanations least damning to Muslim actions and intentions, which is not
>uncommon in this sort of literature.
>  
>
That's very interesting - I was hunting around on his website trying to 
get a better idea of where he is coming from. Berzin certainly struck me 
as someone who has an agenda of some kind (oh, alright - it takes one to 
know one).

>What sort of evidence for what are you seeking?
>  
>
Any kind of evidence will do - as long as it is evidence of either some 
concrete actions taken "under the influence" of Buddhism, or of 
Buddhists calling for such concrete actions. The things I mentioned 
previously were dismantling of standing armies and dissolving of police 
forces. But I am not a pacifist, so I am not the best person to define 
what "evidence" would amount to a demonstration that Buddhism has 
historically promoted pacifism in Asia. I would love to hear a pacifist 
Buddhist explain what it would mean, in practice, for Buddhists "in 
power" to promote pacifism. It would have to go much further than what 
Asoka did, for example. Simply renouncing wars of aggression and 
conquest is hardly "pacifism". Pacifists, as I understand it, renounce 
"all" violence. I am of the opinion that this is not a "coherent" 
position, and they get away with it because they never have to act on 
it. Personally I detest violence - but I also detest cowardice and 
weakness in the face injustice and oppression - and I admire people and 
groups who stand up for themselves and, even better, help to defend 
others who are victimized by bullies of all shapes and sizes. This 
latter, coming to the defense of others, is usually the best and wisest 
of "self-defense" policies: don't wait until they come after you, it 
will very likely be too late by then. I'll bet you agree with that one, 
Dan, although we would probably differ on a lot of the details of how it 
should be put into practice.

>As for pacifism only being a modern innovation in Buddhism, that's not quite
>the case either. Ahimsa (non-harming) has been a Buddhist ideal since the
>beginning, though one has evaluate that -- especially in the early period -- 
>against the Jain version of what the same term entails. 
>
But was Ahimsa every promoted as a practical policy that States should 
adopt? And, if so, did it ever go any further than Asoka's policies 
after his conversion? (His conversion, btw, came rather conveniently 
after he had already done quite a bit of conquering).

>Buddha tended to
>consider Jains extreme in most things, including the way they understood and
>applied ahimsa. Beni has mentioned the Autobiography of Xu Yun (Empty Cloud)
>many times, a Chinese monk who lived well into his hundreds (1840-1959) who
>was a vigilant pacifist (although his authobiography shows that not all
>Buddhists or monks shared his convictions, much less followed his actions).
>To put in bluntly, he was beaten to within an inch of his life numerous
>times, including when interceding to resolve conflicts, which in some cases
>he did eventually succeed in defusing. 
>
Being able to withstand that kind of treatment is not necessarily 
pacifism. In fact it has nothing to do with pacifism, and everything to 
do with self-control. Self-control is one of the primary attributes 
usually glorified by "warrior" types - and for good reason. If one of 
your arms has been hacked off, you can still use your good arm to hack 
someone else's arm off - if you possess enough self-control. This, of 
course, continues until there is only one person left with only one arm 
(and everyone else is armless) - and that person is the winner.

>You can probably find the Charles Luk
>translation in a bookstore or library near you. He is the stunning contrast
>in Chan to the type of Zen decried by Victoria -- one of the insuperable
>gaps between Chan and Zen, especially in recent centuries. 
>
This conflates the issue of "pacifism" with the completely separate fact 
that the Japanese Empire was an evil institution - so that any method of 
supporting it, overtly violent or not, was morally wrong. I think that 
the "propaganda" efforts of Yasutani Roshi, for instance, constitute a 
much greater sin than merely serving in the military. Yasutani actually 
twisted Dogen's teachings to support the theory of Racial Hygiene - 
seeing what is wrong with that has nothing to do with pacifism. When 
Buddhist Monks, as they did when Korea was invaded by the Japanese in 
the 16th century, fight against a foreign invasion - this poses the 
question in a completely different way. Is the use of "violence" 
acceptable under circumstances when you are fighting against something 
that is wrong? And here is where many "pacifists" start making absolute 
statements about "all" violence. One should, of course, do everything 
one can to avoid violence - so long as doing so does not allow even 
greater harm to be done. And I don't have much time for people who 
pretend that its too difficult to decide what the greater harm will be - 
you decide as best you can and take the karmic consequences. And 
inaction creates just as much karma as action does - ofttimes more.

>As in other
>spheres, I would recommend against a too quick either/or approach
>(pacifism/violence). Buddhists had multiple ways of embracing and getting
>around both.
>  
>
Yes - and not only that, but Buddhism as a religion has clearly tried to 
promote peace - but it has never promoted what people today call 
pacifism. Sometimes I have been accused of making sweeping statements, 
btw. I prefer to call them "testable hypotheses". I don't mind being 
proved wrong - if I did I would hedge my bets a lot more. But I'm still 
willing to bet, even money, that I'm right and there is no evidence of 
the Buddhist religion in Asia ever promoting pacifism (OK - one small 
hedge - prior to the current Dalai Lama).

- Curt