[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[James A. Stroble]

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 00:02 +0200, Benito Carral wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2005, James A. Stroble wrote:
> 
> > There is nothing that requires defending.
> 
>    Could you elaborate it?
> 
>    Best wishes,
> 
>    Beni

Sure!  I will defend my assertion that there is nothing to defend!
Seems like I have undertaken an impossible task.  

I was somewhat bothered by Dan's warnings about the threat of Islam of
Oct. 6:

>The problem of Islam in Europe is real. As Bat Yaor has
>warned, if Europe doesn't wake up, it will *be* the Muslim world in
less
>than 20 years (like Kashmir, Bali soon, etc.). It's a war of hegemony.

This was followed by the chastisement of the left (which I guess is
Richard):


>Let me put it this way: unless people on the left begin to recognize
the
>reality of the problem of Islam and devote some creative energy to
dealing
>with that (enlisting and empowering moderate Muslims would be a start),
the
>only ones who will be dealing with it are the Bushes and right wing
>demagogues. As long as the left thinks the way to solve the problem is
to
>join the jihadists in their anti-American choruses (as if that somehow
>immunizes them from being the target of the next attack -- it doesn't),
the
>problem will only get worse, and those in the middle will continue
moving to
>the right.

Now while I agree that some creative energy is in order, I think it is
wrong to think that American foreign policy is "dealing with" the
problem by using force. What is it that we are afraid of?  What is it
that we could lose?   I am a little insulted at the accusation that
those of us who are critical of  American policy are somehow doing so in
expectation of immunity from attack (just ribbing, right?).  The
assumption that "something has to be done" stems from fear, and we all
know what Yoda said about that, if  anyone missed my quotation of  the
Dhammapada. 

This is where the nothing comes in.  In Christian pacifism, or even in
Catholic Just War Doctrine, nothing is really at stake in human
conflicts, God or even the faithful do not need defending. True, wars
are the result of greed, lust, arrogance, and delusion, and these are to
be opposed, but we should not adapt the same means lest we fall victim
to the same vices.  And the Diety, omnipotent and omniscient, can take
care of itself.  God does not need hegemony. 

We might make the same point about truth?  Truth does not need
defending, at least from us inthe reality-based community. Relying on
force betrays a deep cynicism about the truth of one's beliefs. 

And Buddhism, which is not  here just a mandatory mention, has even less
to defend that theistic religions.  Holy war, national defense, and
self-defense are of the same idiom; Buddhism dispenses with all these
entities, they are the products of co-dependent origination, and so at
some time will cease to be.  The only question in Buddhism is the
cessation of suffering, and the path to that is to not create more
suffering by defending that which is in itself impermanent.  So I agree
with Richard.   

So Joy, ya got my back?  (We really have to stop using these combative
terms to refer to our debate here!)
-- 
James A. Stroble <stroble at hawaii.edu>