[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Joy Vriens]

James A. Stroble wrote:

> 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.  

The military or any other form of sacrifice (XVIII,5). "The renunciation 
of prescribed action is not proper" (XVIII, 7), which is not without 
reminding one of a universally spread precept of the need to conform 
with nature (Stoicism, Taoism). Bergson even included human made laws in 
"nature" (stoicism already taught to not control that over which one 
doesn't have any control). And with Buddhism shifting from a more 
individual approach (which already focussed on anatta) to more social 
values, any individual needs became suspect or superfluous. The notion 
of Buddha activity is one of spontaneous activity which is merely the 
result of previous aspiration prayers (pranidhana), which aren't even 
one's individual aspiration prayers put a preset programme, the general 
consensus, that one simply complies with. So the equation "No 
(individualist) thinking = No-mind = No-self = No karma" had been in the 
make for a while.


> 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.

Your remark about tragedy reminded me of Kundera's last essay book "le 
rideau" (of which I have only read excerpts).
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/05/KUNDERA/10169 read under "ET SI 
LE TRAGIQUE NOUS AVAIT ABANDONNÉS ?"
http://mondediplo.com/2003/05/14kundera

The French article with excerpts is freely available, the English 
translation of it isn't unfortunately. Anyway, I could recommend le 
Monde Diplomatique, it's an excellent, though mainly leftish, magazine.

The interesting idea in it is the exemple of Creon versus Antigone, the 
interests of society versus those of the individual (Beni's discussion 
with Curt), both defending a relative partial truth that can be 
justified, but which can only prevail through the total ruin of the 
other. This makes the antagonists both right and guilty and without this 
notion of guilt no future reconciliation is possible.

> And I have always wondered about the guardians one always sees in Sinic
> Buddhism, squishing demons and what not.  Does the Buddha need
> protecting?   

I always tend to interpret that sort of violent representations on the 
symbolic level of an inner sacred war (and presume everybody does), but 
perhaps I shouldn't let them get away with it that easily. One could 
wonder whether an even an internal battle is desirable at all? Wouldn't 
that be violence too?

Joy Vriens