[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[curt]

Joy Vriens wrote:

>> Buddhism has been a mainstream religion throughout Asia for 2500 
>> years. There has never been any move by any "Buddhist" country to 
>> dismantle its standing army and dissolve all police forces and other 
>> institutions of "violence".
>
>
> Sure, but I was thinking of the Buddhist theory and method, not of the 
> way nations behave in which Buddhism was the state religion or 
> equivalent to that. Buddhist theories and practices ambition kilesa 
> nirodha. I don't see violence or war as an expression of that. When I 
> examine whether Christianism is pacifist I rather look at Jesus who 
> teaches to turn the other cheek than at Paul Julius II leading the 
> military on horseback or at Mr. B.. That is extremely naive, but 
> perhaps a bit of naivity would be welcome as an antidote to the 
> dominating cynicism.

Oh good - I'm glad you mentioned turning the other cheek. Sometimes the 
right thing to do is to hit back. Why not? Why is it always "right" to 
invite another slap to yourself? My wife and I recently watched "In the 
Heat of the Night" - its a great movie starring Sidney Poitier. The key 
scene in the movie is when Poitier, who is playing a police officer from 
Philadelphia who ends up investigating a murder case in the deep South, 
is slapped by racist who also happens to the the richest and most 
powerful man in the county and the head of the local KKK (well, more or 
less). Poitier, without hesitation, slaps him back. It is one of the 
most electrifying things you'll ever see on film. (Of course, its just a 
movie - but the Avatamsaka Sutra is just a book.) There are 500 years of 
history behind those slaps, and that second slap is a sign that history 
was changing for the better. People (white people, to put it bluntly) 
give way to much credit to "non-violence" when it comes to making some 
progress against racism in the US. During the same period as the civil 
rights movement there was an ever increasing willingness on the part of 
African Americans to simply stand up for themselves and hit back when 
struck first - both literally and figuratively. A great many of the 
people who participated in the civil rights movement weren't pacifists, 
either - but they adopted non-violence as a tactical method that was 
right for a certain time and a certain place. And, while I'm at it, 
Ghandi's campaign of non-violence only worked because the British and 
French Empires were hopelessly on the ropes in the face of a worldwide 
armed uprising against colonialism. Sometimes if there is a person who 
goes around slapping other people - someone needs to slap him or her 
just once - then it stops. I know that this makes pacifists very nervous 
- they don't want it to be true. But I believe it is.

>> Nor has there been any "call" or "campaign" by Buddhists demanding 
>> any such thing. Buddhist teachers and/or priests have had enormous 
>> political influence throughout Asia - advising kings and emperors and 
>> commanding large followings of their own and also controlling vast 
>> amounts of wealth.
>
>
> How many philosophers had the dream of being able to influence kings 
> and emperors? How many managed to realise their dream? How many were 
> sincere teachers? Politics is making concessions. If teachers thought 
> that by allying with kings they would promote the cause of their 
> school or of Buddhism, they made a double mistake. Serving a king and 
> serving a school or for that matter "Buddhism" is not serving the 
> objective of Buddhism, which is the most intimate affair there is. One 
> can only take care of one's very own "Buddhism".

Actually I would say this is not true. I think a great deal of good can 
come from Buddhists taking every opportunity to try to influence 
political and social change in a positive direction - and historically 
that has included "serving" kings and emperors. The priests who "served" 
Asoka seemed to have done a pretty good job. Perhaps they could have 
done more - but I think its good that they did what they did. Perhaps 
this isn't quite what you meant - maybe we should try to clarify this more.

>> I think that if Asian Buddhists had been promoting pacifism all along 
>> there would be some pretty clear evidence of it. I would be very 
>> interested to hear of any such evidence. I would also be very 
>> interested to know what basis there is for considering pacifism to be 
>> an essential part of Buddhism.
>
>
> You are interested in the social history of Buddhism, I am thinking of 
> its philosophy. 

I don't make this distinction - at least I don't accept it at face 
value. I think that no philosophy can exist separate from ethics - and I 
think that ethics must be both personal and social.

> The Buddhist objective is peace, a peace soothing like the cool moon. 
> Not peace as the opposite of war, but peace. Can you conceive that 
> objective as realisable with violence?

I don't believe that the "ends justify the means". But I also don't 
believe that the "means justify the ends" (ie - as long as you don't use 
violence any result is acceptable). Just "avoiding violence" is an empty 
position - it only makes people feel good for a while - but allows real 
problems to persist unchallenged. I am glad when people defend 
themselves - and even more glad when they defend each other. We live in 
a violent world - it is not possible to avoid violence.

- Curt