[Buddha-l] Quaker peace testimony and Buddhist pacifism

[Richard Hayes]

In previous messages I have referred to the Quaker peace testimony. There is, 
of course, no such thing as THE Quaker peace testimony. Quakers are 
congregationalist in structure, and the practice is for each yearly meeting 
to draw up its own guidelines. There is a range of statements, and 
individuals have their own interpretations of these statements. Some of us 
vow never to take up a weapon against anyone under any circumstances, while 
others do not.

Many of the yearly meetings quote what early Quakers wrote. Here is none 
example of an early attempt to state the Quaker position---one that is quoted 
fairly often:

\begin{quote}
I speak not against any magistrates or peoples defending themselves against 
foreign invasions; or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and 
evil-doers within their borders - for this the present estate of things may 
and doth require, and a great blessing will attend the sword where it is 
borne uprightly to that end and its use will be honourable ... but yet there 
is a better state, which the Lord hath already brought some into, and which 
nations are to expect and to travel towards. There is to be a time 
when 'nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn 
war any more'. When the power of the Gospel spreads over the whole earth, 
thus shall it be throughout the earth, and, where the power of the Spirit 
takes hold of and overcomes any heart at present, thus will it be at present 
with that heart. This blessed state, which shall be brought forth [in 
society] at large in God's season, must begin in particulars [that is, in 
individuals].

Isaac Penington, 1661
\end{quote}
 
Here is a more contemporary statement:

\begin{quote}
Because of their personal experience and convictions, [early] Friends did not 
deny the reality of evil and of conflict. Nor did they equate conflict with 
evil. They were well aware of the suffering which a non-violent witness could 
bring in an imperfect world. This is in contrast to those who identify peace 
with the absence of conflict and value that above all things. It is the 
latter who have given modern pacifism its bad name and have led their critics 
to refer to them contemptuously as 'passivists'. The failure to take evil and 
conflict into account as elements in our human condition and an obsession 
with the need for peace and harmony have led pacifists badly astray... 
Christian pacifists [are] not exempt from the temptation to sacrifice others 
for the sake of peace.

Wolf Mendl, 1974
\end{quote}

Contrary to what Joanna reported, I recall finding a passage in Gandhi's 
writings in which he declares that a nation's failure to defend itself when 
attacked would be folly, In his writings on satyagraha, he says that everyone 
in this world should learn the art of self-defense. For some this might 
include learning to use weapons, but the ideal would be to learn to defend 
oneself, and the nation, in ways that require neither killing nor harm. There 
are several statements to this effect in the volume by Gandhi entitled 
<cite>Non-violent resistance,</cite> which is a collection of writings by 
Gandhi on the topic.

It seems to me that what Pennington, Mendl and Gandhi advocate is quite close 
to what one finds in most Buddhist writings on the subject. And so I still 
find myself puzzled by Paul Fleischman's attempt to distinguish between 
pacifism and non-violence. It still seems to me that he is torching a straw 
man.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes