[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[Joy Vriens]

curt wrote:

>> 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.

I bet, but the resistance to abolishing it came from the very ones 
exploiting them. They couldn't have slept that badly. The slave 
rebellion didn't lead to the abolishment. The public opinion was ready 
for it.

>> 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.

<naive tone of voice with a develish undertone> But what does 
renunciation of wars of aggression and conquest have to do with Buddhist 
influence?
Religious tolerance is not a Buddhist monopoly either.

>> 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".

Yes, I just read the other day that Plotinus (Plotin?) dreamed of going 
to the Orient (like Pyrrhon and others) for that reason, which proves it 
must have really been a hype.

> 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.

Wise and peaceful is not inevitable as you say, but simply scared is 
very likely.

>> 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.

Yes, that is what I wrote to Dan. The use of violence as a large scale 
police action by international organisations could be positive if it is 
as humane as possible as you say. Violence used in one's own country to 
stop violence by one's own citizens is different from violence used 
abroad against foreigners. The latter type of violence is much more 
careless and sloppy.

Joy