[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[curt]

Joy Vriens wrote:

> 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. 

O contraire - sometimes they never woke up (in other words, they were 
killed in their sleep. Most slave uprisings began at night, and often 
involved breaking into the main house and killing the Master and his 
family in their beds). One of the main points of Aptheker's book is to 
document just how much concern, even hysteria, resulted from the 
constant and bloody uprisings of slaves on plantations throughout the 
South. He quotes extensively from newspapers and other original sources 
to make this point. Just about 100 miles from where I live is the little 
town of Harpers Ferry - where old John Brown tried to start a 
nationwide, coordinated slave uprising. He actually had a good overall 
strategy, but his planning for the initial phase proved to be 
insufficient. Although he failed and was captured and hanged along with 
all of his fellow conspirators it is no exaggeration to say that John 
Brown scared the living crap out of every single person who owned human 
slaves. And I say good for him. He was a fundamentalist Christian, by 
the way.

> The slave rebellion didn't lead to the abolishment. The public opinion 
> was ready for it.

Saying exactly what caused what in history is always speculative. But 
there is plenty of evidence that slave resistance played a significant 
role in the end of African Slavery. In the case of the San Domingo 
revolution, slavery ended because the slaves revolted and took over the 
island, for instance. In the case of the US, slavery ended as a direct 
consequence of the Civil War, and liberated slaves fought in large 
numbers and with great effect in the Union army. The "Emancipation 
Proclamation" followed by enrollment of huge numbers of former slaves in 
the Union army made it possible for the North to impose unconditional 
surrender on the South - which in turn made it possible to completely 
dismantle the Slave system. Things would have gone much further had 
Radical Reconstruction not been sabotaged by the Republican Party (those 
darned Republicans - of course back then the "Democrats" were the Party 
of the former slave-holders!). African Slavery was far more central to 
the US economy than to any other nation - it was part of the very 
foundation of American Capitalism. So other nations could more easily 
simply say to themselves "this slavery business really is rather 
embarrassing for us good Christians, ain't 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.

Yes, I agree. But in Asoka's case he was directly influenced in this 
direction by the teachings of the Buddha in particular.

>
>>> 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.

In fact he made it part way - but the expedition he joined up with met 
with disaster, and Plotinus almost lost his life. I think he actually 
was enslaved for a while, while we're still on the subject of slavery. 
And Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher, spent his youth as a slave.

>
>> 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.

And I would also say that even in cases where one decides that violence 
may be "necessary" - that one still has to bear the karmic burden of 
one's actions. I would never say that violence is simply "OK". It is 
always wrong to hurt someone else - but things aren't always so simple, 
as in the case of what to do with an individual who has committed 
multiple violent crimes and intends to commit more. Whatever is done to 
that person is not "free" of karma - but I still think it has to be 
done. Nor do I think that a slave is free of karma when he or she slits 
the Master's throat, and those of his family, while they sleep in their 
beds - but I would much rather have that happen than have to live in a 
world in which slave masters sleep peacefully. And since I feel that 
way, then in order to be consistent (which is not always a high priority 
for me, but in this case I think its a good idea), then I would have to 
say that I would be willing to take on that karmic debt as well.

- Curt