Buddhism and War

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
hermitwin
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:35 pm

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by hermitwin »

Everyone has a role to play.
Do you do every thing your self ?

My gardener keeps the garden, my taxi driver drives the car.

It would be too idealistic to expect everyone to do the same things or not to do certain things .

There will always be butchers and soldiers regardless of what you do.

Choose your role and play it well.
If I keep 5 precepts, I don’t kill animals, but I still eat meat.

It is not about passing the buck but accepting the reality of the world we live in.

Would I prefer a world where no animals are killed for meat and there is no need for soldiers?
YES.

Is that going to happen ?
NO.


kmath wrote:After reviewing some of the old discussion, I want to ask a follow up:

Many people said they might be willing to participate in the war as a doctor or in a similar role that does not require actual fighting. So those people, do you expect others to do the fighting for you?

I don't like the trend I see in Buddhism that allows for "passing the karmic buck" onto other people. For instance,

1. Not killing animals but still eating the meat
2. Monks asking lay people to cut into seeds, dig soil, etc.
3. And in this case allowing others to fight for one

It just seems karmically selfish, so to speak. If you want those things done, why not just accept the consequences of doing them yourself?
User avatar
kmath
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by kmath »

greenjuice wrote:
But I'm not sure why you assume there is nothing "unwholesome" about self-defense.
According to Tipitaka, there isn't.

Vinaya rule Pacittiya 74 says that if one does violence to another out of anger, that is a pacittiya offense. Of course, if one does violence to another with the intention to kill him, and he dies, that is a breach of the first precept, regardless of the motivation.

Regarding the mentioned Pc 74 rule, Tipitaka says that if one does violence to another out of self-defense, it a non-offense, even if anger arises in one's mind.

Also, even if the attacker dies, that is not a breach of the first precept if there was no intention to kill him.

Touche greenjuice, touche.

However, is true that because an action is allowable by Vinaya, it is therefore wholesome?
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by greenjuice »

If one is a Theravadin, then it follows that one accepts the Tipitaka as correct.
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by Modus.Ponens »

kmath wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
kmath wrote: 1. Not killing animals but still eating the meat
3. And in this case allowing others to fight for one

It just seems karmically selfish, so to speak. If you want those things done, why not just accept the consequences of doing them yourself?
I broadly agree. In the event of a war should I expect others to risk their lives in order to defend me, while saying "Oh, I'm a Buddhist, I couldn't possibly take a life."
:thumbsup:
Once you start realising how deep in samsara crap you are, how far the way out is and, especialy, how nobody else around you have any clue of this, you won't even think of going to war to change this world. This world is unchangeable, unless there's a spiritual revolution. I can't see that happening in the near future. So, sorry folks, but I'm not going to compromise my golden opportunity in order to kill others to try making the world a better place _ which I think is a bizarre idea to begin with.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by Modus.Ponens »

kmath wrote:
cooran wrote:Hello all,

This may be of interest:

Buddhism and The Soldier
http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/soldier.htm

With metta,
Chris

" 'Seeha Senapathi Sutta' of Anguttara Nikaya-5 shows how, one of the army commanders named 'Seeha' went to Buddha to clarify certain doubts on the Dhamma and how the Buddha advised him without requesting him to resign from the Army or to disband the army. Having clarified his doubts on the Dhamma, Commander Seeha requested Buddha to accept him as a deciple of the Buddha. But Buddha instead of advising him to resign from the army advised thus

'Seeha, it is proper for a popular person of your status to always think and examine when attending to affairs and making decisions ' Seeha, the commander became a sotapanna (stream enterer = first fruit of the Path) having listened to the Dhamma, but remained in the army as a commander."

-- Buddhism and The Soldier

Is this right? He became a sotapanna while he was an army commander?
It's very important to consider that most of the endings of the suttas in the Agamas don't mention this one or that one geting to stream entry or to arahatship. Please correct me if I'm wrong, sutta experts, so my memory doesn't misinform other people. So this general attaining sotapanna may be devoid of truth.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by SarathW »

This link may help with this discussion.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ssage.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by greenjuice »

That text is pretty biased towards pacifism, Thanissaro just mentions in passing the fact that Buddha approved of self-defense and continues to advocate his view. Also, in his book about Buddhist Monastic Code, he rather reluctantly mentions the non-offense part of the Pc 74 rule, which states that violence done in self-defense is a non-offense, giving a shortest summary possible to an important question like that, he gives more room e.g. for the non-offense part of rules against lighting a fire to warm oneself and against hiding another's belongings as joke.
User avatar
kmath
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by kmath »

greenjuice wrote:That text is pretty biased towards pacifism, Thanissaro just mentions in passing the fact that Buddha approved of self-defense and continues to advocate his view. Also, in his book about Buddhist Monastic Code, he rather reluctantly mentions the non-offense part of the Pc 74 rule, which states that violence done in self-defense is a non-offense, giving a shortest summary possible to an important question like that, he gives more room e.g. for the non-offense part of rules against lighting a fire to warm oneself and against hiding another's belongings as joke.
Way to go greenjuice! This is great.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by Jason »

kmath wrote:There's a number of "Just War" theories out there and I wonder if people subscribe to any of them. Or if by undertaking the fifth precept, are you a strict pacifist? I'm curious to hear anyone's thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,

KM
No, I wouldn't consider myself a strict pacifist, although I do hold to a predominately non-violent philosophy.

It's often assumed that Buddhists must be strict pacifists. But the Buddha never forbade kings or soldiers, even those actively engaged in warfare, from becoming lay-followers, so it certainly wasn't a requirement (although he certainly didn't approve of their actions, either). He also didn't say that one shouldn't defend oneself when necessary. Buddhism is nothing if not pragmatic, and it's understood that we're potentially going to be confronted with situations where we may feel the need to, or automatically react with, some level of violence and force. That's one reason there's no offense for a monk who, "trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'" (Pc74).

Nevertheless, pacifism as a baseline for conduct is definitely inline with the first precept and the principle of harmlessness. In fact, I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu makes a pretty good case for this aspect in his essay "Getting the Message." Matthew Kosuta also makes a relatively good case for this in his paper, "The Buddha and the Four-Limbed Army: The Military in the Pali Canon."

All in all, I think non-violent solutions to any conflict should be exercised until it's no longer tenable, and then I think the least amount of force/violence should be used when all else fails.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Buddhism and War

Post by greenjuice »

It should be noted that Buddhism isn't vague on the subject. No killing is ever wholesome. You can be a soldier and go to war and do violence, but if you intentionally kill anyone, you have broken the first precept, which is always unwholesome.
Post Reply