Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

[SDC]

The Dhamma is about living the holy life to various degrees, as a monk or lay follower.
…

Life encompasses more than just the holy life.

I don’t expect you’ll respond to this as I’m gathering you must have me on your foe list with how often you don’t respond, but I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. If a person is not a sotapanna they are not living the holy life. You don’t get points for a “nice try” nor for good intentions that never materialized into noble effort. If we opt to tend to the world and squander an opportunity for right view, we may end up without absolutely nothing to show for. Everyone here has a choice about what they dedicate their time to pursuing, and if you opt for “more than” you settled for less as far as any description of liberation is concerned. The Dhamma does not extend into “more than” the four noble truths. Either a person develops the perspective that includes the extent of the whole of suffering or they remain with ignorance, diversification, preferences and endless wandering. We cannot have it both ways.

[Cause_and_Effect]

The Dhamma is about living the holy life to various degrees, as a monk or lay follower.
…

Life encompasses more than just the holy life.

I don’t expect you’ll respond to this as I’m gathering you must have me on your foe list with how often you don’t respond,

I think just mild paranoia on your part.

but I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. If a person is not a sotapanna they are not living the holy life. You don’t get points for a “nice try” nor for good intentions that never materialized into noble effort. If we opt to tend to the world and squander an opportunity for right view, we may end up without absolutely nothing to show for. Everyone here has a choice about what they dedicate their time to pursuing, and if you opt for “more than” you settled for less as far as any description of liberation is concerned. The Dhamma does not extend into “more than” the four noble truths. Either a person develops the perspective that includes the extent of the whole of suffering or they remain with ignorance, diversification, preferences and endless wandering. We cannot have it both ways.

Life is many things and the holy life is just the specific mode or configuration of living that is amenable to liberation.
Likewise the dhamma and the living of the holy life is subject to amenable conditions. This gets more refined the higher up you go. So a monk has to live dependent on a community to support them. However this presupposes the existence of a stable society and economy such that there are many lay followers who can support.
Lay followers in normal circumstances can live a 'less holy holy life' by following precepts and ethical action while engaging with the world more including sensual pleasures to an extent.

So what happens in a war situation where there is no longer the stable society and support may be difficult?

One can have right view and acknowledge the role of kamma and an ideal way of living.
However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

You may not agree with the details but it is incidental.
The structure is by necessity.
As in any community of being it on depends on aquiring food first whether monks, lay people, ordinary society or animals.
It is linked to survival. Closely connected to this is safety and security. So military life may be a function of this at certain times and only after safety has been re-established can the full extent of living the holy life be lived.

[bpallister]

The Dhamma is about living the holy life to various degrees, as a monk or lay follower.
…

Life encompasses more than just the holy life.

I don’t expect you’ll respond to this as I’m gathering you must have me on your foe list with how often you don’t respond, but I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. If a person is not a sotapanna they are not living the holy life. You don’t get points for a “nice try” nor for good intentions that never materialized into noble effort. If we opt to tend to the world and squander an opportunity for right view, we may end up without absolutely nothing to show for. Everyone here has a choice about what they dedicate their time to pursuing, and if you opt for “more than” you settled for less as far as any description of liberation is concerned. The Dhamma does not extend into “more than” the four noble truths. Either a person develops the perspective that includes the extent of the whole of suffering or they remain with ignorance, diversification, preferences and endless wandering. We cannot have it both ways.

this post. Thank you!

[Maarten]

Putin could have been our brother, our father, etc. in a previoius life. Does that change the way you feel?

Well said.

In addition to that, we were also Putin in many of our previous lives. A warmonger, or an idealist, who thought he was doing the right thing.

And we were those soldiers on both sides, who both thought they were doing the right thing.

And if we aren't careful, in the future we'll be like them again...

[SDC]

I think just mild paranoia on your part.

No. Just a bit of theater to make it harder to avoid responding...and it worked.

Lay followers in normal circumstances can live a 'less holy holy life' by following precepts and ethical action while engaging with the world more including sensual pleasures to an extent.

That isn't the holy life at all. That is virtuous living that may have no tenable alignment with right view.

So what happens in a war situation where there is no longer the stable society and support may be difficult?

No different from what was there before war: choice. A person always has a choice. Point being, when there is not a war at hand, the best preparation for unsettling circumstances is the development of dispassion, and that includes relinquishing any "backup plan" being retained for when worldly conditions turn their back on you. If we reserve the right to turn back to the world for solace when things start to come apart, that is nothing other than leaving the absolute center of Being where it always has been: wandering on and on. I'm no stranger to not being able to stomach the harsh reality that awaits the direction of the world, but it is no excuse to attempt to water-down what is at stake for those who don't make the effort to surmount it.

It all comes down to choice and what is believed to be a source of safety. If fighting in a war for the betterment of the world is understood to be the ultimate safety, to ensure food and shelter, then the fight is worth it. However, if the view being fortified when there is no war consists of a preference for preferable conditions then craving is still the centerpiece. That right there is the danger in holding such a contingency plan - that craving is always the factor that determines how things should end up. If that thinking is kept intact, the information gathered for Dhamma practice is nothing other than a tool for gratification. That is a serious misapplication.

To be clear: I am not saying to sit there and let your loved ones be killed in front of you. All I am trying to get across in this discussion is to consider the direction of worldly thinking that encourages one to reserve the right to fight when things deteriorate to certain level. Harboring a strategy for those circumstances, keeping them ready, is the maintenance wrong view at the utmost influential position. It will undermine the development of Dhamma at every turn.

[asahi]

The stream of the world always runs agaisnt the stream of the Dhamma . Both dont meet .

[anagaarika]

To be clear: I am not saying to sit there and let your loved ones be killed in front of you. All I am trying to get across in this discussion is to consider the direction of worldly thinking that encourages one to reserve the right to fight when things deteriorate to certain level. Harboring a strategy for those circumstances, keeping them ready, is the maintenance wrong view at the utmost influential position. It will undermine the development of Dhamma at every turn.

I kinda see what you´re pointing at, but it seems to me that you ignore the fact of conventional reality (as opposed to the ultimate level). Yes, renouncing the world completely and ordaining is the optimal way of practicing the dhamma, but it´s possible only for a very small fraction of people. Those who are not in the robes still have their worldly duties, which the Buddha acknowledged and never disputed. He was not an anarchist and neither was he questioning the existence of states and societies. Being unordained does not shut one´s door to partial awakening. For instance, you can have a livelihood AND a degree of awakening at the same time. I agree it is always a trade-off, i.e. the less energy you put into worldly affairs, the more energy you can invest in dhamma. Yet there is no categorical contradiction between having wordly responsibilities and practicing the dhamma (and even getting good results).

Now, the situation we are talking about here is a rather extreme one. I also don´t quite get this:

Point being, when there is not a war at hand, the best preparation for unsettling circumstances is the development of dispassion, and that includes relinquishing any "backup plan" being retained for when worldly conditions turn their back on you.

What do you mean by not having the backup plan? Do you mean thinking about possible scenarios? Yes, when there was no war, I was doing my best to prepare for unsettling circumstances by developing dispassion. However, I failed to develop it to the anagami or arahant level where you no longer can experience fear or attachment to anything in this world, including your physical body and other people. This attachment is that I simply don´t want them to suffer more than necessary. Now the circumstances are getting very "unsettling". In a few weeks or months, this insane war could be in my country as well. Russian tanks and troops may come and my government may try to draft me, for instance. That would be some serious decision for me to make - I have never held a weapon in my hands and now someone would ask me to go and kill other people. Me, a practicing Buddhist who wishes nothing more than to live a peaceful life and cultivate loving kindness and compassion. So what do you do in such scenario? You have to do something, you cannot close your eyes before that. I don´t think the Buddha advocated giving up all action - he advocated deep reflection of such action. We do have a professional army, we are in NATO, but it is still possible, even if hopefully not very likely, that I will be asked to take weapon and offer armed resistance...

[mikenz66]

It's good to see a nuanced discussion here...

To be clear: I am not saying to sit there and let your loved ones be killed in front of you. All I am trying to get across in this discussion is to consider the direction of worldly thinking that encourages one to reserve the right to fight when things deteriorate to certain level. Harboring a strategy for those circumstances, keeping them ready, is the maintenance wrong view at the utmost influential position. It will undermine the development of Dhamma at every turn.

What do you mean by not having the backup plan? Do you mean thinking about possible scenarios? Yes, when there was no war, I was doing my best to prepare for unsettling circumstances by developing dispassion. However, I failed to develop it to the anagami or arahant level where you no longer can experience fear or attachment to anything in this world, including your physical body and other people. ...

Perhaps what SDC is pointing to is the attitude towards priorities (Dhamma / worldly life) and how one therefore plans and makes decisions. Clearly, there are circumstances where one has to choose a course of action, and all possibilities have downsides. [And there are millions of people right now who are in that position.] Can we make those choices [protecting our family, for example], from a place of Dhamma? With a mind of non-anger, compassion, and wisdom? Can we drop self-interest? Can we drop the attitude of looking for legalistic loopholes to justify our actions? It's not an easy task, and I'm certainly not claiming to be doing it...

This isn't primarily about external actions. One could imagine two people who were outwardly behaving much the same in a conflict, but one would be following the Dhamma, and the other not.


Mike

[anagaarika]

This isn't primarily about external actions. One could imagine two people who were outwardly behaving much the same in a conflict, but one would be following the Dhamma, and the other not.

Yet this is exactly what eludes some posters in this thread, I believe. A lot of Buddhist tend to view the law of kamma as some kind of a cosmic accountant who keeps track of your deeds (external actions) and then checks both sides of the balance ("good" vs. "bad") and sends you either to hell or to heaven. The way I read the Buddha´s words is that kamma is intention, it´s about shaping your consciousness, which is something you do habitually throughout your life. Some Buddhists´ interpretation of kamma is actually closer to jainism (or to Christian ideas of infernal punishment). As far as I know, if you accidentaly step on a bug on a road (not seeing it), you accrue no kamma in the Buddhist view. This is where the Buddha departs from Jainism. This being said, a civilian who kills an invader as a desperate act of self-defense cannot be compared to a murder who "takes life" in the narrow sense of the phrase, not to mention soldiers who commit heinous war crimes and rejoice in their deeds.

[mikenz66]

Yes, it's complicated. I like this description of how to be prepared - not by pondering the possible answers to particular questions. Though this passage is about questions, the same applies to actions. One needs to assess the situation and apply wisdom.

“Sir, there are clever aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics who come to see you with a question already planned. Do you think beforehand that if they ask you like this, you’ll answer like that, or does the answer just appear to you on the spot?”

“Well then, prince, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, prince? Are you skilled in the various parts of a chariot?”

“I am, sir.”

“What do you think, prince? When they come to you and ask: ‘What’s the name of this chariot part?’ Do you think beforehand that if they ask you like this, you’ll answer like that, or does the answer appear to you on the spot?”

“Sir, I’m well-known as a charioteer skilled in a chariot’s parts. All the parts are well-known to me. The answer just appears to me on the spot.”

“In the same way, when clever aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics come to see me with a question already planned, the answer just appears to me on the spot. Why is that? Because the Realized One has clearly comprehended the principle of the teachings, so that the answer just appears to him on the spot.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn58/en/sujato

Mike

[dharmacorps]

One can have right view and acknowledge the role of kamma and an ideal way of living.
However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

You are placing a pop-psychology construct (Maslow's Hierarchy) above the dhamma.

The Buddha didn't say "practice the dhamma unless you can't eat or survive practicing it, then do whatever you need to regardless of the killing, lying, stealing, misconduct and intoxication involved".

There are worse things than dying, like debasing yourself.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Lay followers in normal circumstances can live a 'less holy holy life' by following precepts and ethical action while engaging with the world more including sensual pleasures to an extent.

That isn't the holy life at all. That is virtuous living that may have no tenable alignment with right view.

You seem to think the holy life means only 'the life of those who have become holy' (ie stream winners). This may be one definition but it is contradictory as one has to try to establish the holy life first. Many have right view without being stream winners.
I consider the monastic community and many follower as living the holy life to varying degrees whether or not they are ariya.

So what happens in a war situation where there is no longer the stable society and support may be difficult?

No different from what was there before war: choice. A person always has a choice...

To be clear: I am not saying to sit there and let your loved ones be killed in front of you.

So what are you saying then in tangible terms since it's not clear at all.

One can have right view and acknowledge the role of kamma and an ideal way of living.
However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

You are placing a pop-psychology construct (Maslow's Hierarchy) above the dhamma.

The Buddha didn't say "practice the dhamma unless you can't eat or survive practicing it, then do whatever you need to regardless of the killing, lying, stealing, misconduct and intoxication involved".

There are worse things than dying, like debasing yourself.

It's not a 'pop psychology' construct even though it became mainstream.
It still gets to the essence of living on a bio-social level.
The dhamma does not contravene the necessities of living and nor can it.

I'm seeing a lot of gushy devotionalism to ideals and not practice.

So tell me two scenario's:

-You are stranded on an island or in a jungle with no food source.

Would you starve to death or consciously and humanely kill a small animal to sustain you untill you can get out and continue to practice dhamma?
What would you really do? Talk is cheap.


- A gun wielding attacker invades your home and is taking aim to shoot your family. You have a chance to apprehend him with a gun nearby. What would you do?

If you can answer the questions without idealism and lying to yourself we may get somewhere.

[Ceisiwr]

Yet you seem to think reading some words 2500 years later allows you to make broad generalizations about humanity based on faith.

That's the thing. It's not "just some words" to me. It's Dhamma as taught by a Samma Sambuddha, and that Dhamma is the lens through which I see the world.

The statements of the fallen warrior sutta are contradicted elsewhere in the Canon since it is stated murderers can be born in the heavenly world if past kamma fruition occurs.

As noted, the workings of kamma stretch back far and cannot be speculated upon.
Saying 'if you die while having a thought of killing you go to hell' is far too simplistic.

As I said, I'm not speculating on anything. There also isn't a contradiction. Kamma is complex, but certain actions do have specific results. Some actions are so weighty, they even block awakening in this life and lead one to unpleasant destinations.

“Mendicants, someone with six qualities is unable to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities even when listening to the true teaching. What six? They murder their mother or father or a perfected one. They maliciously shed the blood of a Realized One. They cause a schism in the Saṅgha. They’re witless, dull, and stupid. Someone with these six qualities is unable to enter the sure path with regards to skillful qualities, even when listening to the true teaching." - AN 6.87

Your statements were also different even from the most mechanistic interpretations of the fallen warrior sutta, since you made the totally erroneous claim that 'all participants who killed in WW2 are in hell', a claim that has no basis in the Canon considering the diversity of situations they may have faced i.e prisoners of war, death in battle, death due to starvation, suicide, friendly fire, logistical support so indirect inolvement etc.
This blanket statements such that you make grossly misrepresent the dhamma.

According to the sutta, the solider doesn't even have to kill.

Saying 'if you die while having a thought of killing you go to hell' is far too simplistic.

You know better than the Blessed One? You can of course reject the suttas in question instead of having to say that.

[Ceisiwr]

-You are stranded on an island or in a jungle with no food source.

Would you starve to death or consciously and humanely kill a small animal to sustain you untill you can get out and continue to practice dhamma?
What would you really do? Talk is cheap.

I'd hope I had the strength to starve to death mindfully, rather than killing. Are you saying you think the Buddha would approve of killing, in certain situations? Seems to me killing to live longer is simply craving and clinging to existence.

"When one considers existence, one is afraid;
When one considers non-existence, one is also afraid.
This is why one should not be attached to existence
Or to non-existence"

- Dharmapada

By the way, in your scenario I can only starve since you said there is no food source

[Ceisiwr]

However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

That model seems to go against the Dhamma to me. Sex is a need?