[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[James A. Stroble]

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 15:04 +0200, Joy Vriens wrote:
> James A. Stroble wrote:
> 
> > So Joy, ya got my back?  (We really have to stop using these combative
> > terms to refer to our debate here!)
> 
> You have been of a perfect clarity and don't need any help. Dan can 
> relax. :-)
> 
> When I read passages from Zen at war or similar texts, and reports about 
> Lama Zhang from the Tibetan tradition, I am very much reminded of the 
> desinterested action (also in a war context...) of the Bhagavad gita or 
> even of the notion of spontaneous Buddha activity. Is there any link?

One of my teachers was of the opinion that the Bhagavad Gita was
composed as a rebuttal of Buddhist (and Jain) pacifism,  holding up the
idea of dharma yoga and the renunciation of fruits, while keeping the
military.  

<snip>
> No thinking = No-mind = No-self = No karma or acting which is free of 
> the three circles (subject, object and action) and which is therefore 
> non-action.
> 
> So either one totally effaces one's self, dissolves it, so that one 
> becomes a selfless actor or rather actorless activity, a totally 
> obedient (because not opposing any resistance) link in a chain, becoming 
> one with whatever programme needs to be carried out, or one retains a 
> bit of Tom's "personal ontological purity", a bit of personal judgement 
> about what it is right or wrong and the possibility to resist that 
> programme or the "general interest". Making choices creates anxiety and 
> responsibility. One can be much more in peace when no choices need to 
> made. One's own purity doesn't need to be a selfish concern and is 
> therefore not necessarily a comfortable thing.
> 
> Joy



This is the notion of Upaya, skillful action that does not generate
karma, the non-violent violence of Mahayana.   I suspect there is no
such thing, it probably is the result of westernization.  It might be
paired with the western notion of "bloody hands,"  the tragedy of the
absolute moral necessity of doing something that is absolutely wrong.  I
tend to think of Buddhism as not being tragic. 
 
And I have always wondered about the guardians one always sees in Sinic
Buddhism, squishing demons and what not.  Does the Buddha need
protecting?   


Thanks to Franz for  the summary of the earlier discussion.  It did seem
like deja vu all over again.  Is this a sign that the buddhist pacifism
thread is about to be extinguished again?