[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[curt]

Joy Vriens wrote:

> "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.

Slaves have always rebelled against their condition. In the specific 
case of African slavery there is a classic history book by Herbert 
Aptheker called "American Negro Slave Revolts". It is a very inspiring 
book. Wherever there are slaves their masters should sleep in fear. Also 
C.L.R. James wrote a book called "The Black Jacobins: Toussaint 
L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution" - which is about the slave 
revolt on the island of San Domingo - modern day Haiti and the Dominican 
Republic. Carlos Santana (the musician and a very "spiritual" artist in 
my book) wrote a song inspired by Toussaint L'Overture - the leader of 
the "San Domingo Revolution".

>
>>> 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?

In the specific case of King Asoka I think a strong argument can be made 
that a very positive influence on state policy is attributable directly 
to his conversion to Buddhism. Two things in particular are notable 
about Asoka's regime after his conversion: (1) his renunciation of wars 
of aggression and conquest, (2) his strong support for religious tolerance.

>
>> 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 influences between the Hellenistic world and India went both ways. 
The Hellenes generally considered both the Indians and the Egyptians as 
their spiritual "superiors". Whether they were right or not is a 
separate issue - but that was the view at the time - and that view was 
universally accepted as valid prior to the 18th century. As far as the 
influence of advancing age and maturity, this was probably a factor - 
but it is far from inevitable that someone will become more wise and 
peaceful as they get older. And the fact is that Asoka quite clearly 
turned to Buddhism for guidance in how he could be a better king - and I 
think the results of that decision were positive.

>
>>> 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?

To some limited extent there may always be some violence "necessary" for 
humans. To physically restrain a person is an act of "violence", and yet 
this is sometimes necessary for everyone's good. Sometimes even 
confining a person against their will might be necessary for periods of 
time - again for their own good and that of everyone else. But there are 
few things more "violent" than placing a person under such confinement. 
And, of course, we will always have our "animal nature". I don't believe 
that animal nature to be an inherently evil thing - but I do suspect 
that it is something that humanity will never be able to fully control 
and predict. As long as their are people willing to commit acts of 
violence such as physically assaulting others, rape, child molestation, 
etc - some means will need to exist for "handling" such people, and such 
handling will involve some kinds of "violence" - but it should be as 
humane as possible. But except for cases like that I do believe that it 
is possible for humans to create a different kind of society in which 
the violence that we now know will become unknown. Carlos Santana has a 
nice little phrase (he probably got it from somewhere else - but maybe 
he made it up himself): "Un Mundo sin carteras, sin banderas y sin 
fronteras" (a world without wallets, without flags, and without borders).

- Curt