Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Set Winning and Losing Aside



From the Sangama Sutra, trans. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
Winning gives birth to hostility.
Losing, one lies down in pain.
The calmed lie down with ease,
having set
winning & losing
aside.

The Buddha uttered this verse when told of the defeat in battle of King Pasenadi at the hand of King Ajatasattu. Given the context, this verse was a commentary on warfare. I think it is particularly appropriate given the violence we are seeing exploding around the world today.

What do we gain by having to win? Anything more than an ego boost? I think it's very east to get caught up in rationalizing our behavior, justifying the means by the ends achieved, and lose sight of the brutality inherent in the means. I think our government is caught up in this quagmire of rationalization and ego.

In an essay entitled A Human Approach to World Peace, the Dalai Lama wrote:
Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained.

Violence is never the answer.



Thursday, June 08, 2006

War, Ethics, and Religion

Vietnam War Memorial - The Three Soldiers or The Three Servicemen

I read an interesting article today entitled World Religions: War and Peace, which asserts that religions can take one of three views regarding war:
  • Pacifist: War (and violence) is wrong.
  • Just War: War can be justified under certain circumstances.
  • Holy War: War is justified if it is a Holy War, ordained by the god of the religion.

I'm impressed by the unbiased approach taken in the article. For instance, it correctly denotes that Buddhism is a pacifist religion, but does not shy away from noting that the Buddhist regime in Sri Lanka is seen as oppressing the Hindu minority.

The article got me thinking, where do I stand? I find myself in the pacifist camp, with a caveat. I, personally, feel it's ok to defend oneself if attacked. As Bodhisattvas, it is our responsibility to achieve awakening for the benefit of all beings and, in the process, imbue all of our thoughts, actions, and speech with generosity, ethical restraint, patience, joyous effort, concentration, and wisdom (Six Paramitas), for the benefit of others. But if we are attacked, it inhibits our ability to fulfill our Bodhisattva vows. Therefore, for the benefit of others, we are justified, I feel, in defending ourselves. However, there is a caveat to this, as well. We must NOT do so out of anger and hate. This would allow the unwholesome roots to rule our actions. We must defend ourselves out of compassion. In this way, we will do no harm beyond that which is necessary.

Buddhism is not dogmatic. Our precepts are not dictates—they are generalities based upon observation of actions-results and wisdom. "To do no harm" is our greatest precept, but, as in all things, the compassion that inhabits it must be tempered with wisdom. As a result, war is almost never black & white. Was our invasion of Iraq ethical? Pacifists would say no. The "Just War" camp might say yes, depending on their predilections. In my view, I lean toward no, because the information upon which we based our invasion was incorrect. We were truly in no danger from Iraq. Were the people of Iraq oppressed? Arguably, yes. Was invasion the best way to intervene? I don't think so.

1-Minute Contemplation: Is violence always wrong? If not, when is it justified?