Buddhism, War And Non-Violence

[Xangsamhua]

The topic of how Buddhists should respond to the call to defend their country or perform military service has been discussed before on this forum, but I want to raise it again in the light of two books I have read recently. They are Zen at War (2008), by Brian Daizen Victoria, and Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945 (2011), by Sir Max Hastings.

The first book was reviewed comprehensively on this forum by Camerata in thaivisa.com, post #160 at

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/86130-favorite-buddhist-books-not-suttas-and-reference-websites/page__st__150

and Camerata asks how Victoria can remain a Zen priest in view of the doctrinal and moral support the Zen leadership gave to Japanese militarism and its war crimes between 1932 (Manchukuo) and 1945, despite postwar apologies by all except the Rinzai sect.

The second book describes in great detail over 700 pages the impact of the war in Europe, Asia and the Pacific on combatants and civilians of the warring nations.

Both books have had a significant impact on me, though in Applied Linguistics (language teaching) terms, the impact of Victoria's book is local, whereas that of Hastings is global. By these terms I mean that I am now aware, in the first case, of the dangers of some hermeneutics, especially found in Japanese Zen, but based in Mahayana, and of national chauvinism (Japanese particularism, in this case), but it is local: I do not extend this awareness to a rejection of what is valuable in Mahayana and Zen more broadly. In the second case, Hastings' account has brought me to a position of pacifism, at least for myself, but probably also as a political view. This is a marked change in my previous belief in Just War theory and the expectation that the rights of citizenship should go along with a willingness to defend one's country. There has been a holistic (global) shift in my position on these matters.

It has been said that there is some irony in the fact that Theravada is seen to be passive in the face of the pain that humanity suffers, whereas Mahayana is more vocally and, supposedly, actively compassionate, but it is Mahayana's extension of the idea of skilful means in the face of political pressure, especially pressure to commit acts that are harmful to life, that has led to the vicious fantasy that one can kill with impunity and even justify it on the grounds that it prevents the victim from accruing bad karma. Killing in order to prevent more killings may be justified in extreme cases, but they are confined and exceptional cases. Hastings' book seriously questions - in my mind - the justification for killing (war) as a national strategy; it seems to just make matters worse, and the possibility of freedom from oppression as an outcome of victory is a questionable rationale for all the death and destruction on both sides of the conflict necessary to bring it about.

To expand a little on skilful means: There is a story in the Upayakausalya Sutra of the Mahayana texts, in which the Buddha killed a man to keep him from killing others and suffering the consequences in hell. As a result, the man was reborn in one of the realms of heaven. In extreme circumstances this may be the best course of action to follow, but as national policy it has to be examined closely from a moral as well as a strategic perspective. If one's leaders ask you to join in an ethnic cleansing campaign because the "others" are wicked and untrustworthy, you would be right to refuse, even at the risk of harm to yourself. If they ask you to defend your community from people whose avowed intention is to wipe it out, then you have a decision to take. Will firing back or even, perhaps, taking preventative action against your enemies, ensure your community's present and future safety? The evidence seems to be that it may not, or that it may only after a period of extended hostilities resulting in the deaths of many combatants and bystanders. What is skilful means in this case? My inclination at the moment is to that one should take all measures on board other than strategic violence, and yet I have some sympathy for strategic assassination of key figures. Is this skilful means? Probably not, given historical precedents where assassinations are avenged ten or a hundredfold on the community believed to be responsible.

In short, I suspect the doctrine of skilful means, which I understand to be common to both Mahayana and Theravada, is another way of saying "the means justify the ends" and requires very careful handling therefore. In the case of Japanese Buddhism in the 30s and 40s it very clearly got out of control and became a rationalization of brutality and atrocity.

There is too much I want to say, but this is a web forum, not an academic platform, so I will conclude with a hypothetical and a moral question: (1) Would the world really be any worse off if oppressors were met with passive resistance, evasion and sabotage than the cumulative effects of large-scale violent resistance? (2) If one trusts the Buddha's core teaching to avoid harm to others, can one apply "skilful means" in such a way that that core teaching is reversed?

Edited February 14, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[oggie911]

in the 2nd world war the thais where scared to go to war but let there people be slave to the nips, but the never go to war. war, give me money i rich you can work our children and poor to death and belive me thais are proud of that till this day,be cause no war but let there own die had old lady tell me she happy not go war but ok kill people work for japs, weird

[GrahamR]

Snip <(1) Would the world really be any worse off if oppressors were met with passive resistance, evasion and sabotage than the cumulative effects of large-scale violent resistance? (2) If one trusts the Buddha's core teaching to avoid harm to others, can one apply "skilful means" in such a way that that core teaching is reversed? >

Perhaps it depends on the circumstances. Non violence from Gandhi worked well at removing the British Raj from India.

Would a non violent response to Hitler have worked? Almost certainly not and what would have been the consequences?

This is a very difficult moral topic!

Graham.

[fabianfred]

A very difficult subject.

The Buddha said 'if you are being attacked by a group of people, who are beating and stabbing and trying to kill you, do not get angry for then you will be creating bad karma for yourself..... Have compassion for the attackers who are creating bad karma for themselves.....'

In this light, non-violence is the only way.

As Ghandi said when asked if we should use non-violence against Hitler....'of course there would be much suffering.....but when we contend and make war on the oppressors, there is also much suffering....'

Take the situation in Burma. The people can either contend with non-violence, as they do now, and hope that public opinion will force the Government to change their ways or change the Government....a long hard road.....or they must rise up.....together.....all at once...and using non-violence remove those from office who do them ill. Of course many will die, but the soldiers cannot kill them all, cannot jail them all, but by not contending they are still suffering every day. Many of those in the army and in official positions do not want to do what they do, but are afraid of the consequences if they do not.

How many here can say that if someone put a gun in their hand and another to their head, being told to kill or be killed, would have the courage to refuse. Most are afraid to die...this life is precious to them....especially if their religion or non belief cause them to think that this is their only life, their only chance....

Buddhists should never be afraid of death, because we know that we have died and been reborn countless times in the infinite past.

i would rather die than break a precept to such an extent as killing another to save myself.

[GrahamR]

A very difficult subject.

The Buddha said 'if you are being attacked by a group of people, who are beating and stabbing and trying to kill you, do not get angry for then you will be creating bad karma for yourself..... Have compassion for the attackers who are creating bad karma for themselves.....'

In this light, non-violence is the only way.

As Ghandi said when asked if we should use non-violence against Hitler....'of course there would be much suffering.....but when we contend and make war on the oppressors, there is also much suffering....'

Very good points, I just wonder how well passive resistance could have worked against Hitler, he managed to exterminate millions even with military resistance. Would it have simply led to the creation of slave nations as he had planned? Is that an answer?

In the first world war, many were given the choice of fighting or being court marshalled and shot. It takes a lot of courage to take that path.

Graham

[sabaijai]

A very difficult subject.

The Buddha said 'if you are being attacked by a group of people, who are beating and stabbing and trying to kill you, do not get angry for then you will be creating bad karma for yourself..... Have compassion for the attackers who are creating bad karma for themselves.....'

In this light, non-violence is the only way.

As Ghandi said when asked if we should use non-violence against Hitler....'of course there would be much suffering.....but when we contend and make war on the oppressors, there is also much suffering....'

Very good points, I just wonder how well passive resistance could have worked against Hitler, he managed to exterminate millions even with military resistance. Would it have simply led to the creation of slave nations as he had planned? Is that an answer?

In the first world war, many were given the choice of fighting or being court marshalled and shot. It takes a lot of courage to take that path.

Graham

Nonviolent resistance worked quite well against Hitler in the few instances in which is was praticsed.

[GrahamR]

Nonviolent resistance worked quite well against Hitler in the few instances in which is was praticsed.

Could you elaborate a little please? I can think of many examples of minor resistance resulting in execution. Non violent resistance is unfortunately not well publicised.

Graham

[rockyysdt]

A very difficult subject.

The Buddha said 'if you are being attacked by a group of people, who are beating and stabbing and trying to kill you, do not get angry for then you will be creating bad karma for yourself..... Have compassion for the attackers who are creating bad karma for themselves.....'

This is one of the most difficult things in life.

So difficult, I count myself extremely lucky not to have lived through a war or civil conflict.

We are all capable of unspeakable acts given the circumstance.

Non violence is the correct way, but unfortunately as we are not awakened each of us is subject to committing transgressions.

I have much compassion for those unlucky enough to have been involved in war.

Edited February 20, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

A very difficult subject.

The Buddha said 'if you are being attacked by a group of people, who are beating and stabbing and trying to kill you, do not get angry for then you will be creating bad karma for yourself..... Have compassion for the attackers who are creating bad karma for themselves.....'

This is one of the most difficult things in life.

So difficult, I count myself extremely lucky not to have lived through a war or civil conflict.

We are all capable of unspeakable acts given the circumstance.

Non violence is the correct way, but unfortunately as we are not awakened each of us is subject to committing transgressions.

I have much compassion for those unlucky enough to have been involved in war.

I agree. I think it's terribly difficult.

Reading about the massive brutalization and carnage among the combatants, the suffering of the bombing victims, and the terrible deprivations for the survivors in World War 2, I can't imagine a worse outcome.

Even, as Graham R fears, slavery to the insane dystopia of Nazism might hold out some hope for the future. And yet, I just can't see a nation subjected to a serious threat of that kind agreeing to bow before it. Individuals and groups might, but not the nation as a whole.

So, if your country is going to fight against a direct threat, is it morally acceptable to refuse? As a Buddhist, I expect one can register as a conscientious objector and agree to serve in a non-combatant role (these are often very dangerous)? I think that would be my decision now**, but it does nothing to ease the tendency of conflicts to escalate and to be drawn out, often leading to more horrific outcomes than either side could have imagined.

People tend to go into wars thinking they'll be "over by Christmas", but they seldom are. As Max Hastings says in Inferno, ".... when great forces have been created and deployed, it is almost inevitable that they will be used. As long as the enemy refuses to acknowledge defeat, it is deemed intolerable for armies to stand idle, bombs to remain in their dumps. (Kindle 11382-89)

** Of course, it would not have been 30 years ago when I was a serving member of the Active Reserve.

[sabaijai]

Nonviolent resistance worked quite well against Hitler in the few instances in which is was praticsed.

Could you elaborate a little please? I can think of many examples of minor resistance resulting in execution. Non violent resistance is unfortunately not well publicised.

Graham

https://www.google.c...tance+to+nazism

A good documentary on the subject:

A Force More Powerful

http://www.aforcemor.../afmp/index.php

[GrahamR]

https://www.google.c...tance+to+nazism

A good documentary on the subject:

A Force More Powerful

http://www.aforcemor.../afmp/index.php

From what I can glean the most successful passive resistance citied was from Norway and Denmark, both of which were liberated by allied forces. The resistance impeded aspects of the Nazi occupation, but certainly did not overthrow it. I'm still not convinced how successful passive resistance would be against that type of occupier.

In the longer term, without military intervention, would those countries have been brought under Nazi indoctrination? There was collaboration in both. Without the hope of liberation, would collaboration have been more widely embraced?

Graham

[rockyysdt]

https://www.google.c...tance+to+nazism

A good documentary on the subject:

A Force More Powerful

http://www.aforcemor.../afmp/index.php

From what I can glean the most successful passive resistance citied was from Norway and Denmark, both of which were liberated by allied forces. The resistance impeded aspects of the Nazi occupation, but certainly did not overthrow it. I'm still not convinced how successful passive resistance would be against that type of occupier.

In the longer term, without military intervention, would those countries have been brought under Nazi indoctrination? There was collaboration in both. Without the hope of liberation, would collaboration have been more widely embraced?

Graham

It seems, in life, there are many unfavorable tasks requiring action.

One could include slaughtering animals so the rest of us can eat as one such task.

In any population there will always be those who will perform such tasks, and who will inevitably suffer the consequence of their actions.

We can only be thankful if our lives have been free of such paths.

Being the heirs of such action, I wonder how deeply we become affected.

Edited February 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[GrahamR]

It seems, in life, there are many unfavorable tasks requiring action.

One could include slaughtering animals so the rest of us can eat as one such task.

In any population there will always be those who will perform such tasks, and who will inevitably suffer the consequence of their actions.

We can only be thankful if our lives have been free of such paths.

Being the heirs of such action, I wonder how deeply we become affected.

Personally I don't normally eat meat to attempt to reduce the slaughter of animals.

I am sure people are deeply affected by the brutality of war and occupation. My grandfather served in WWI and we never knew much of what he did until my father recovered his diary after his death. My father served in WWII and also spoke very little of any fighting until about 5 years ago.

People are drawn into a spiral of violence in war with promises of being home by Christmas, duty to their country and the like. It's a brutalising experience. Veterans are hardened by what the see and do.

Graham

[rockyysdt]

It seems, in life, there are many unfavorable tasks requiring action.

One could include slaughtering animals so the rest of us can eat as one such task.

In any population there will always be those who will perform such tasks, and who will inevitably suffer the consequence of their actions.

We can only be thankful if our lives have been free of such paths.

Being the heirs of such action, I wonder how deeply we become affected.

Personally I don't normally eat meat to attempt to reduce the slaughter of animals.

I am sure people are deeply affected by the brutality of war and occupation. My grandfather served in WWI and we never knew much of what he did until my father recovered his diary after his death. My father served in WWII and also spoke very little of any fighting until about 5 years ago.

People are drawn into a spiral of violence in war with promises of being home by Christmas, duty to their country and the like. It's a brutalising experience. Veterans are hardened by what the see and do.

Graham

And it continues.

If your examples are U.S. related, then there's about 100,000 or more currently being brutalized and soon to be set lose on their return.

As it's been suggested, there isn't really an answer other than to follow the precepts and hope your life doesn't involve such influences.

Edited February 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Mirth]

To conquer others, one must first conquer themselves.

To defend others, one must first defend oneself.

To fight or to defend, it starts with yourself.

[lungmi]

The topic excludes an academic discussion (in a general way not but on the personal level).

18 years old I was conscentious objector in Germany. Our Constitution gave me the right to object, but I was investigated by a court. I won

with some Buddha Teaching (and French Existentialist) at this time.: No one can order me to go to kill. My human right.

I

[GrahamR]

The topic excludes an academic discussion (in a general way not but on the personal level).

18 years old I was conscentious objector in Germany. Our Constitution gave me the right to object, but I was investigated by a court. I won

with some Buddha Teaching (and French Existentialist) at this time.: No one can order me to go to kill. My human right.

I

You are lucky to live with the protection of that constitution

Graham

[Xangsamhua]

After reading Max Hastings' Inferno, with its horrific descriptions of the large-scale death, destruction, brutalization and impoverishment that occurred throughout the war years and later, I read a short biography of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to come to terms with Hitler and Mussolini, hoping to achieve a negotiated peace by conceding Czechoslovakia and Abyssinia. Clearly, Chamberlain was naive in thinking that these men would keep their word, and his reputation as an "appeaser" was destroyed as a result, followed shortly after by his early death. Yet Chamberlain tried to do the right thing, and was supported by most people in the country, in attempting to at least put off the war until Britain was better armed and equipped. He lost the support of the Foreign Office and most of his cabinet only towards the end (1938), when to informed opinion it was obvious that the dictators were intent on war and had no personal honour whatsoever. Had he listened to Churchill and a few others, re-armament would have proceeded more rapidly, but he was a stubborn man who believed strongly that he was right.

So this is an example of a man of peace who, in pursuing peace, put his country's security at grave risk, and yet the core duty of a prime minister is that you do all possible to protect your people from aggressors.

As a Buddhist, conscientious objection would seem to be the right course of action to take in response to war, but this is a personal decision, not a strategic policy. I might appeal to the courts as a conscientious objector, and as a Buddhist I may well be excused from combat duties, but that doesn't alter the strategic situation at all. As a c.o., should I be also arguing for all my countrymen to lay their arms, or should I let them fight on behalf of all citizens, including myself, who do not or cannot take up arms for one reason or another? I just can't see them taking any notice or having any sympathy.

I suspect war is inevitable and will always be with us in one form or another. I don't think it achieves much, and what it does achieve is at an unacceptable cost. But people and states will not take threats lying down. They will fight back. Israel, for example, will fight to the death if need be. The people of Afghanistan will continue to fight outsiders and then will fight each other. Civil war may be ongoing in the Middle East and parts of Africa. And so on. As Heraclitus said, "War is the father, the king of us all." As individuals we can withhold our participation, but is it fair to expect others to fight in our stead?

Edited February 28, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

After reading Max Hastings' Inferno, with its horrific descriptions of the large-scale death, destruction, brutalization and impoverishment that occurred throughout the war years and later, I read a short biography of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to come to terms with Hitler and Mussolini, hoping to achieve a negotiated peace by conceding Czechoslovakia and Abyssinia. Clearly, Chamberlain was naive in thinking that these men would keep their word, and his reputation as an "appeaser" was destroyed as a result, followed shortly after by his early death. Yet Chamberlain tried to do the right thing, and was supported by most people in the country, in attempting to at least put off the war until Britain was better armed and equipped. He lost the support of the Foreign Office and most of his cabinet only towards the end (1938), when to informed opinion it was obvious that the dictators were intent on war and had no personal honour whatsoever. Had he listened to Churchill and a few others, re-armament would have proceeded more rapidly, but he was a stubborn man who believed strongly that he was right.

So this is an example of a man of peace who, in pursuing peace, put his country's security at grave risk, and yet the core duty of a prime minister is that you do all possible to protect your people from aggressors.

As a Buddhist, conscientious objection would seem to be the right course of action to take in response to war, but this is a personal decision, not a strategic policy. I might appeal to the courts as a conscientious objector, and as a Buddhist I may well be excused from combat duties, but that doesn't alter the strategic situation at all. As a c.o., should I be also arguing for all my countrymen to lay their arms, or should I let them fight on behalf of all citizens, including myself, who do not or cannot take up arms for one reason or another? I just can't see them taking any notice or having any sympathy.

I suspect war is inevitable and will always be with us in one form or another. I don't think it achieves much, and what it does achieve is at an unacceptable cost. But people and states will not take threats lying down. They will fight back. Israel, for example, will fight to the death if need be. The people of Afghanistan will continue to fight outsiders and then will fight each other. Civil war may be ongoing in the Middle East and parts of Africa. And so on. As Heraclitus said, "War is the father, the king of us all." As individuals we can withhold our participation, but is it fair to expect others to fight in our stead?

It's truly a crossroad.

Do you adhere to your Buddhist principals and abstain from bearing arms/killing, or does your compassion for others compel you to sacrifice yourself (kharma & dukkha) for the welfare of others?

Not an easy question.

Then again who gains from fighting for ones state?

To me countries are monoliths which are bound by culture and mostly benefit the few.

For example, I've heard that in the U.S. 90% of the wealth is held by 5% of the population.

What are we fighting for?

Is it to keep the elite in power by using tools such as culture/patriotism as motivators.

Or

Is it to stop genocide or oppression of minorities?

But then such oppression can only occur if groups identify with race, religion, culture.

Edited February 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[GrahamR]

After reading Max Hastings' Inferno, with its horrific descriptions of the large-scale death, destruction, brutalization and impoverishment that occurred throughout the war years and later, I read a short biography of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who tried to come to terms with Hitler and Mussolini, hoping to achieve a negotiated peace by conceding Czechoslovakia and Abyssinia. Clearly, Chamberlain was naive in thinking that these men would keep their word, and his reputation as an "appeaser" was destroyed as a result, followed shortly after by his early death. Yet Chamberlain tried to do the right thing, and was supported by most people in the country, in attempting to at least put off the war until Britain was better armed and equipped. He lost the support of the Foreign Office and most of his cabinet only towards the end (1938), when to informed opinion it was obvious that the dictators were intent on war and had no personal honour whatsoever. Had he listened to Churchill and a few others, re-armament would have proceeded more rapidly, but he was a stubborn man who believed strongly that he was right.

Chamberlain is perhaps rather harshly judged by history, In 1938 Britain didn't have the military might to confront the Nazis in Europe, hence the fiasco at Dunkirk. Britain simply didn't have the resources or will to arm as fast as Germany, Could Chamberlain have made much difference? Did he gain time by putting off war or loose time for preparation?

After the bombing of Guernica in 1937 people were aware that there would be a heavy price for war and it would involve significant civilian casualties. My grandfather was a rail transport officer around this time and the military command was clearly aware that there would be a war and that it would have devastating results. My father and aunt were some of the first evacuees - sent off in 1938.

Graham

[lungmi]

Vitarka Mudra

Intellectual argument, discussion. The circle formed by the thumb and index finger is the sign of the Wheel of Law.

My protection in Thailand. I have the licence to kill (shotokan karate, Zen instructor)

It worked 2 times in the last 20 years.No need to kill.

[lungmi]

Vitarka Mudra

Intellectual argument, discussion. The circle formed by the thumb and index finger is the sign of the Wheel of Law.

My protection in Thailand. I have the licence to kill (shotokan karate, Zen instructor)

It worked 2 times in the last 20 years.No need to kill.

To #17.

I used this Mudra when I was at Court and the judges ask me what I would do when a russian soldier tries to kill my mother . They were surprised and I had to explain.

This Mudra is connected (in my limited knowing) to the water-fight between local Landlords at the time of the Buddha. The Buddha with this Mudra calmed them down and opened their mind for

a peaceful agreement following the Teaching of the Buddha.

My experience with this Mudra in Thailand.

In a group of Thai and farang friends in a restaurant I saw a violent fight between a drunken wife and her husband. I wanted to mediate, everyone held me back. Not muddle.

But when I saw the woman down and the man ready to go with his feet on her body, I stood up with this Mudra and placed me between the antagonists. The answer was a Muay Thai front kick

in my body. Automatically I contracted all my muscles and he felt down. He came back with a chair, a Thai friend (Muay Thai boxer before and devoted Buddhist) came with the same Mudra to assist me.

The man ran out..

The day after he came back. 3 deep bowings in public and apologies. I accepted. Now I eat sometimes in his noodle shop.

[camerata]

The

topic of how Buddhists should respond to the call to defend their

country or perform military service has been discussed before on this

forum, but I want to raise it again in the light of two books I have

read recently. They are Zen at War (2008), by Brian Daizen Victoria, and Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945 (2011), by Sir Max Hastings.

The first book was reviewed comprehensively on this forum by Camerata in thaivisa.com, post #160 at

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/86130-favorite-buddhist-books-not-suttas-and-reference-websites/page__st__150

and

Camerata asks how Victoria can remain a Zen priest in view of the

doctrinal and moral support the Zen leadership gave to Japanese

militarism and its war crimes between 1932 (Manchukuo) and 1945, despite

postwar apologies by all except the Rinzai sect.

To bring this up to date, and in the interest of fairness, there was eventually a 60-page rebuttal of Victoria's main comments on Suzuki, and an easier-to-read summary of that rebuttal called Setting the Record Straight on D.T. Suzuki. But Suzuki was just one of the Zen teachers mentioned in the book, and I didn't find the rebuttal entirely convincing.