[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Lee Dillion]

Geez.  You try to please someone by agreeing with them and yet they 
still wish to argue.  What is it you want us to believe, curt?  That 
institutional religions, no matter their content, make pragmatic 
compromises?  OK.  That those compromises may be contrary to the 
scriptures/canon that inform the religion?  OK.  That you can find 
Buddhists throughout the ages who have supported governments that use 
violence?  OK.

Granted all this, what more is it you are arguing?

By the way, you state that Buddhism obviously "discourages" violence. 
But "discourage" is far too lenient a word in my view as the early canon 
condemns violence repeatedly and never expressly approves of violence in 
any situation (other than the obvious approval of killing anger).  If 
you are aware of a sutta or sutra that suggests otherwise, let me know, 
as my readings have been rather limited in scope.  On the other hand, if 
you simply want to appeal to the pragmatism of Buddhism, I've seen those 
arguments before.

Lee


curt wrote:
> This is a nice example of what bothers me. If Buddhism is not pacifist, 
> then it must be pro-violence. That is a typical "pacifist" stance. 
> Pacifists have no monopoly on opposition to violence. Buddhism has 
> probably had a positive effect on Asian culture with respect to violence 
> and many other social problems - but that is not due to pacifism, which 
> has never been embraced by Asian Buddhists. Simply "conceding" that 
> Buddhism is not pacifist in no way implies that Buddhism does not 
> discourage violence, which it obviously does. The implication that one 
> must be a pacifist in order to work against violence, or that a Religion 
> must be pacifist in order to be a force for peace in human society only 
> makes pacifists look arrogant and more concerned with their own moral 
> purity than with actually alleviating suffering.
> - Curt