[Buddha-l] Buddhism & War

[Ngawang Dorje]

Hi,
   
  Chapter 25, Mahavamsa, we find:
   
  Arrived at Mahiyangana he overpowered the Damila Chatta. When he had slain the Damilas in that very place he came then to Ambatitthaka, which had a trench leading from the river, and (conquered) the Damila Titthamba; fighting the crafty and powerful foe for four months he (finally) overcame him by cunning,' since he placed his mother in his view. When the mighty man marching thence down (the river) had conquered seven mighty Damila princes in one day and had established peace, he gave over the booty to his troops. Therefore is (the place)called Khemäräma. 
  http://www.vipassana.com/resources/mahavamsa/mhv25.php
   
  To use someone's mother as a hostage in a war could not be called righteous or skillful, even in modern warfare rules.
   
  Best wishes,
  Rahula

curt <curt at cola.iges.org> wrote:
  Thanks for posting the link to Prof. Premasiri's article. I would like 
to draw attention to one particular passage:

"Before this discussion is concluded it seems appropriate to mention one 
last point about the Buddhist canonical accounts relating to war. Where 
one of the parties engaged in war is considered as righteous and the 
other as unrighteous, the Buddhist canonical accounts highlight the 
ethical qualities of the righteous party by showing that although they 
are compelled by circumstances to engage in war for the purpose of 
self-defense, they do not resort to unnecessary acts of cruelty even 
towards the defeated. The righteous party in war avoids harm to the 
innocent and is ready to pardon even the defeated enemy. Skillful 
methods are adopted in order to cause the least harm. Where the enemy 
could be defeated without injury to and destruction of life those 
skillful means to do so are explored to the maximum." (reference: 
Ummagga Jataka, Jataka 4, p.329 ff.)

This passage accepts as a given that Buddhists have historically 
distinguished between so-called wars of choice, on the one hand, and, on 
the other hand, situations in which a group of people is "compelled by 
circumstances to engage in war for the purpose of self-defense..." This, 
in turn, contradicts the notion that Buddhism is a "pacifist" religion. 
The single most important defining characteristic of pacifism is it's 
rejection of "defensive" violence - including especially defensive wars. 
And pacifists do not hold this as an abstract principle - but as a 
practical proposition that can and should be implemented in the here and 
now. Buddhists, on the other hand, have historically not called upon 
"their" governments (in which they have often wielded significant 
influence) to disarm and disband their militaries, much less to simply 
yield when confronted by military aggression.

- Curt


 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060924/e38e649e/attachment.htm