Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
anagaarika
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:38 pm

Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by anagaarika »

Hi all,

let me start by saying that this thread is not meant as a political discussion. I will be using a very specific situation as an example, yet my focus is the Dhamma, not the politics.

As you probably know, there is a fairly high possibility of an open military conflict between the Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Or, to put it more precisely, there is a Russian invasion going on right now as some parts of the country have already been effectively annexed to Russia. It´s a clearly one-sided aggression, nothing even close to a bilateral conflict.

As far as I know, the orthodox Theravada position is that violence in any form and under any circumstances is not a justifiable solution to problems. I wonder whether this has always been interpreted in such a way that anyone who faces one-sided aggression (be it an individual or a whole nation) is to simply give up any resistance and stand helpless even against the most "unjust" (for a lack of a better word) violence, as is the case with the Russian invasion right now. I personally detest violence to the core of my being, yet I am a bit at loss about what to do when facing such senseless and destructive aggression. If someone comes at you with a knife in the night, you can simply run for your life and either you get out alive, or you don´t. That´s an ethically uncomplicated situation. If someone with a knife breaks into your house and you´re there alone, you can again either run or just let the person kill you if you´re awakened enough and don´t cling to life. Again, relatively straightforward. However, the situation gets a bit trickier if there is also your wife with your children at home. Now your decision affects not only you, but also your beloved ones. And now, let´s say a neighbouring country invades your homeland for no reason at all. Let´s say there is mobilization (I know that in my country I could refuse that order, but I´m not sure about the Ukraine) and the government now asks you to go to the front and kill other people. Would it still be you who would be to "blame"? Or the government? Is succumbing to such instances of aggression really the only legitimate Buddhist response?

I think there are two conflicting levels to this that prevent me from settling this for myself - the ultimate vs. the conventional. On the ultimate level, I have no doubt that killing is never a good choice. Especially if we are talking about situations where only we ourselves are involved. In such instances, I believe it is better to get killed than to kill. But the question gets more complex when other beings come into play - not to speak of whole nations. Is the only justifiable response from the Ukrainain government giving away their territory to Russia? And where is the guarantee that this will appease Putin? Of course, I don´t want to limit this only to the ongoing East European crisis so feel free to express your thoughts even if they´re unrelated to this.

From time to time, I have nightmares about wars. It is probably one of the worst situations I can think of in this human existance, far worse than any form of cancer etc. I really hope I won´t have to deal with this in real life... :rolleye:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by Ceisiwr »

Soldiers go to hell yet of course people wish to defend their homes, families and countries. It's natural. There is a reason why most people fall into lower realms when they die.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by SarathW »

This is a good question about the Buddhist dilemma.
In Tipitaka there is a story about Buddha is trying to stop a rival king by destroying his clan.
But he gave it up the third time as it was just a Kamma Vipaka of his relatives.
My experience is that the truth always will be protected.
As a lay household, only fight without the anger just only for your protection.
However, fighting the war is not the monks' job even though you can see some monks are fighting to protect their country (Dalilama)
My general observation is in a war both parties seem to be wrong.
However, if you have to fight then fight but accept and know your Kamma and Vipaka.

We should see the dependent origination nature of the war.
Can you explain the meaning of one's nation?
Is that the place you live or the place you were born or your parents born or you pledged to be your nation?
Last edited by SarathW on Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
SarathW wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:57 pm As a lay household, only fight without the anger just only for your protection.
Agreed.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:40 pm There is a reason why most people fall into lower realms when they die.
because they don’t accept lower realms are real
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by SarathW »

cappuccino wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:12 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:40 pm There is a reason why most people fall into lower realms when they die.
because they don’t accept lower realms are real
Actually, it is not knowing the true Dhamma or the Four Noble Truths.
I know many soldiers join the army as a job but the army training indoctrinate them to be patriotic,
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by cappuccino »

SarathW wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:18 pm Actually, it is not knowing the true Dhamma
well yes, but right view is most basic
santa100
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by santa100 »

anagaarika wrote:Especially if we are talking about situations where only we ourselves are involved. In such instances, I believe it is better to get killed than to kill. But the question gets more complex when other beings come into play - not to speak of whole nations.
Now you know why the great sage Asita's prediction for the newly born prince Siddhattha Gotama would be either to become the most powerful worldly monarch OR the most enlightened/awaken teacher, but NOT BOTH! Each has a specific role to perform, hence a specific set of resultant Kammas to inherit. And although there're some overlapping/shared common duties between a great king and a great spiritual leader, there're many others that simply don't overlap at all. One of which is the tough/difficult decision to wage wars for the safety of one's homeland. And as noble an act of compassion of an enlightened sage who equanimously sits and allows his attacker to slowly saw off his limbs one by one with a two-handled saw, imagine the equally disastrous/horrific consequences had the leader of a country followed the same exact approach as that noble one! Afterall, as mentioned in other threads, regardless of how highly we humans try to think of ourselves, truth of the matter is we aren't that much more evolved than those cave-dwelling savages 100,000 years ago. Whether inside the jungle or outside, there'll always be the predator and the prey. And the bigger fish will always eat the smaller ones. So, unless one's already steadfast on their full monastic path, one'd better be prepared when/where s/he's about to be eaten, which is not a question of if, but when. Just simple reality.
Last edited by santa100 on Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:40 pm Soldiers go to hell
A sweeping generalisation. That is not what it says in the Yodhājīva Sutta, which is about the destiny of those soldiers who die while striving in battle (to kill others).

See also the Mahākammavibhaṅga Sutta.

One could join the army as a medic. Being a conscientious objector is not the only course for a Buddhist in the event of a war.

Monks are permitted to give a blow to another, desiring to escape, but intentional killing would still be an offence of defeat.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by Ceisiwr »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:39 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:40 pm Soldiers go to hell
A sweeping generalisation. That is not what it says in the Yodhājīva Sutta, which is about the destiny of those soldiers who die while striving in battle (to kill others).

See also the Mahākammavibhaṅga Sutta.

One could join the army as a medic. Being a conscientious objector is not the only course for a Buddhist in the event of a war.

Monks are permitted to give a blow to another, desiring to escape, but intentional killing would still be an offence of defeat.
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to soldiers who actually kill Bhante, but thanks for making that clear to any who did not understand that. Naturally if someone joins the army but works as a cook and doesn't kill anyone, then there is no unwholesome action there.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:53 pm I thought it was obvious that I was referring to soldiers who actually kill Bhante, but thanks for making that clear to any who did not understand that.
Even then you're generalizing.
AN 3.14 wrote:“Bhikkhus, even a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, does not turn the wheel without a king above him.”

When this was said, a certain bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “But, Bhante, who is the king above a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma?

“It is the Dhamma, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for the people in his court. Again, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for his khattiya vassals, his army, brahmins and householders, the people of town and countryside, ascetics and brahmins, and the animals and birds. Having provided such righteous protection, shelter, and guard for all these beings, that wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, turns the wheel solely through the Dhamma, a wheel that cannot be turned back by any hostile human being.
See also DNS's Dhammawiki entry on Self-defense.

When faced with aggression, there is no Buddhist obligation to be a wuss.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:59 pm Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:53 pm I thought it was obvious that I was referring to soldiers who actually kill Bhante, but thanks for making that clear to any who did not understand that.
Even then you're generalizing.
AN 3.14 wrote:“Bhikkhus, even a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, does not turn the wheel without a king above him.”

When this was said, a certain bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “But, Bhante, who is the king above a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma?

“It is the Dhamma, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for the people in his court. Again, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for his khattiya vassals, his army, brahmins and householders, the people of town and countryside, ascetics and brahmins, and the animals and birds. Having provided such righteous protection, shelter, and guard for all these beings, that wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, turns the wheel solely through the Dhamma, a wheel that cannot be turned back by any hostile human being.
Sell also DNS's Dhammawiki entry on Self-defense.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Regarding this topic I don't find arguments which appeal to an ideal world where everyone voluntarily accepts vassalship and the rule of a Wheel Turning Monarch particularly convincing.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by dharmacorps »

The biggest danger from war isn't that the other side could kill you. It is what either side could get you to do-- kill, main, torture, debase yourself and lose goodness. That is the true danger. Conducting yourself with honor in the midst of war, meaning continuing to live ethically is a true victory. That means holding to the precepts and protecting your goodness.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:59 pm When faced with aggression, there is no Buddhist obligation to be a wuss.
Or, alternatively, it takes a lot of strength not to act aggressively.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
anagaarika
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:38 pm

Re: Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

Post by anagaarika »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:39 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:40 pm Soldiers go to hell
A sweeping generalisation. That is not what it says in the Yodhājīva Sutta, which is about the destiny of those soldiers who die while striving in battle (to kill others).

See also the Mahākammavibhaṅga Sutta.

One could join the army as a medic. Being a conscientious objector is not the only course for a Buddhist in the event of a war.

Monks are permitted to give a blow to another, desiring to escape, but intentional killing would still be an offence of defeat.
Thanks Bhante, I was just going to write that I also found Ceisiwr´s comment incredibly simplistic, dogmatic, black-and-white and ignoring the complexity of the issue at hand... It is so easy to make such sweeping statements from behind your keyboard. This is not to advocate violence or killing, but we should bear in mind how complex certain ethical dilemmas and motivations of people can be. I simply don´t buy into this reductionist, mechanistic understanding of kamma. Even Abhidamma (can´t provide an exact quote, sorry) distinguishes between "prompted" and "unprompted" action, the latter being always more weighty in results. It´s easy to send all people who defend their homes and families to hell if you´re living in a first-world country where no one has experienced the horrors of war in decades. But I guess that when these things get real, many of our preconceived ideas may (or may not, of course) go out of the window.
Post Reply