[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[James A. Stroble]

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 08:28 -0400, curt wrote:
> James A. Stroble wrote:

> >	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.
> >  
> >
> Two clear cut examples: (1) Tibet, a Buddhist Theocracy for the last 
> 1,000 years or so, has all along maintained (and used) a standing army. 
> It has also maintained, and used, the death penalty as part of its legal 
> system. (2) The Korean monk Sosan Taesa organized a guerrilla army in 
> 1592 to defend Korea against a foreign invasion. To this day Korean 
> Buddhists honor Sosan Taesa and are especially proud of his role as a 
> "national hero". The Korean Buddhist Jogye has a several biographies of 
> "Great Masters of Korean Buddhism" at this url: 
> http://eng.buddhism.or.kr/master/list.asp - look for "Hyoo Jung". 
> Instead of "Sosan Taesa" they spell it "Sursan Daesah" - transliteration 
> of Korean is extremely non-standardized. All modern day Korean Zen 
> Masters trace their lineage, with pride, back to Sosan Taesa and hist 
> four most senior students, who served as his lieutenants during the 
> guerrilla war that eventually succeeded in repelling the invaders (with 
> a little help from the Chinese).
> 

And I was afraid you would bring up Sri Lanka!!  Are we confusing
Buddhist states with Buddhism itself?  It may be impossible for a
government to be pacifist, or at least be pacifist and survive, as
illustrated in the examples Dan gave us from the period of the Muslim
conquests.  But the survival of a Buddhist state is not synonymous with
the survival of  Buddhism.  

> This is a case of the pot calling the kettle a pot. Pacifism is a 
> western idea. Buddhism in Asia has never promoted pacifism. Buddhist 
> countries have always maintained armies and have used them in 
> self-defense. Buddhists, including great teachers and masters have both 
> supported this and participated in it, and there has never been a 
> "Buddhist" criticism of that fact. Ever.

The critique is there, it is just not as adversarial as the Western
pacifist traditions where one must "speak truth to power."   The
Mahaparinibbana sutta contains  an evaluation of the relative strength
of two states, but in the Buddha's version good government (the seven
factors of non-decline) are determinative, not military power. The
Cakkavatti Sutta  gives a critique by showing what happens when a state
moves from non-violence to the use of force.  These "critiques" do not
so much denounce violence as wrong as they suggest the causal relations
between the use of force and suffering.  This changes, admittedly, when
Buddhism finds itself making a sales pitch for itself as a "Protector of
the State," the kind of thing that has already been discussed in
relation to Buddhism in Japan.  But I would think this is more a matter
of magic and nationalism than Buddhism.  
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I am in fact a metaphysical monist and possibly a 
> pervert - but I'm not sure about that other stuff. I might be using the 
> terminology wrong, but I think that Yogacara is "metaphysically monist" 
> - ain't it? And Tantra gets pretty perverted sometimes, don't it?
> 
> - Curt

Maybe it's not the monism that is the problem.  Christian pacifism is
based on the understanding that the ultimate value is not at stake in
the violence of the world, but our attitude toward that ultimate value
is.  Thus the usual critique, voiced here by Tom, that pacifism is a
selfish concern with one's own purity over the political realities of a
world of violence.  Ultimately, however, justifications for the use of
violence are much more dualist, or Manichaean, because insisting on the
necessity of violence  amounts to admitting that the ultimate value
needs defending, whether that is the Faith, the Dharma, the Nation, or
the Self.  An absolute that needs defending is hardly absolute, and this
then is idolatry in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, and delusion
and a source of suffering in Buddhism. 
	Buddhist pacifism just makes the simple point that violence causes
suffering, and thus does not consitute skillful means. So Richard is
right, in his response to Benito:
>>    I  wouldn't die without trying to defend the world I
>> have chosen to live in.

>We may differ on this. I didn't choose to live in any world. It just
>happened. And I'm quite happy to let it just stop happening when the
>conditions support that.

There is nothing that requires defending. 

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