[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[James A. Stroble]

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 08:52 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote:
> curt wrote:
> 
> > Joy Vriens wrote:
> 
> > Oh good - I'm glad you mentioned turning the other cheek.
> 
> I thought you would.

I don't appear in the stats for recent postings, but I have to de-lurk
at this point to say that the list has been taken over by
substantialists, metaphysical monists and realpolitikers.  Sometimes I
think you have to maintain eternal vigilance to defend the dharma
against all sorts of  perversion.  The worst of these is the attempt to
westernize Buddhism so that the instrumental use of violence is
acceptable.  Now it bad enought that members of the United States
administration think they are accomplishing something, making something
safe, by  means of violence.  But from a Buddhist perspective, this is
just plain wrong.  I mean plain wrong.  
	I would like to challenge (damn testosterone! Sorry, Joanna) Curt to
show one instance where buddhism disavows pacifism.  Of  course we will
leave out Zen under  Imperial Japan on the grounds that their position
was Japanese of the time, not Buddhist.
	And Dan.... wait, never start two fights at the same time.   More on
self-defense later. 

>From the Dhammapada: 
        
        ``He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'' in
        those who harbour such thoughts hatred is not appeased.
        
        ``He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'' in
        those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred is appeased.
        
        ________________________________________________________________
        
        Hate is not overcome by hate; by Love (Metta) alone is hate
        appeased. This is an eternal law.
        
        The others know not that in this quarrel we perish; those of
        them who realise it, have their quarrels calmed thereby.


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

Joy's point is well taken. It was not the violence that made the
difference, but the refusal to accept violence, non-violent resistance
or resistance to violence.  Same thing? 

-- 
James A. Stroble <stroble at hawaii.edu>