[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[Joy Vriens]

curt wrote:

> Joy Vriens wrote:

> Oh good - I'm glad you mentioned turning the other cheek.

I thought you would.

> Sometimes the 
> right thing to do is to hit back. Why not? Why is it always "right" to 
> invite another slap to yourself?

3-6:

'He insulted me,
    hit me,
    beat me,
    robbed me'
  — for those who brood on this,
hostility isn't stilled.

'He insulted me,
hit me,
beat me,
robbed me' —
for those who don't brood on this,
hostility is stilled.

    Hostilities aren't stilled
through hostility,
regardless.
Hostilities are stilled
through non-hostility:
this, an unending truth.

I see turning the other cheek as a very powerful teaser or mind-opener. 
We are so used to exchange evil for evil and so utterly convinced of our 
*right* to do so, that we overlook the question whether it is actually 
in our interest to do so. Not using one's rights has almost become a 
crime, like not using and exploiting nature was considered folly after 
Descartes. "Turning the other cheek" makes one sit up and ask "Huh, what!?"

> 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.

"Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, only four years after the 
abolition of slavery in the British Empire. The anti-slavery movement 
had campaigned for years to achieve the ban, succeeding with a partial 
abolition in 1807 and the full ban in 1833. It had taken so long because 
the anti-slavery morality was pitted against a powerful capitalist 
element in the empire which claimed that their businesses would be 
destroyed if they were not permitted to exploit slave labour. Eventually 
plantation owners in the Caribbean received £20 million in compensation."
http://www.answers.com/topic/victorian-morality

I didn't have the impression that any slaves stood up against their 
condition to achieve this. Victorians simply became gradually aware of 
the wrongness of slavery.

>> 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.

What specific Buddhist values could Buddhists bring into politics that 
aren't universal values? I could only think of non-violence, but you 
don't seem to want that particular value. I personally don't see what 
Buddhists could bring to politics. We Buddhists apparently are not even 
capable of agreeing on what that influence should be?

> 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.

In how far were Asoka and his time prepared for more universal values 
through contacts with the Hellenistic world? Just a question of somehow 
who doesn't know much about this period? And didn't Asoka have other 
interests in "listening" to those priests (like e.g. King Clovis in 
France)? Aren't there any personal factors either, an aging person 
getting nearer to death may start questioning some of his actions and 
start fearing death and the afterdeath? etc. etc.

>> 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.

Don't you want to defend yourself and others and challenge that problem 
of violence, deal with it instead of allowing it to persist unchallenged 
and instead of accepting it as unavoidable?

Joy