Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
This probably has been discussed ad nauseaum but I am wondering in all the many Buddhist traditions if there is ever the notion of justified war or conflict.
Is there such a thing within the Buddhist belief system?
If there isn't one must wonder about the constraints or limitations of idealistic pacifism within the rest of the world where such idealist concepts generally are not the majority rule.
I imagine for a pacifist Buddhist it is a constant struggle to reconcile those beliefs.
Is there such a thing within the Buddhist belief system?
If there isn't one must wonder about the constraints or limitations of idealistic pacifism within the rest of the world where such idealist concepts generally are not the majority rule.
I imagine for a pacifist Buddhist it is a constant struggle to reconcile those beliefs.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
Are you looking for excuses? To judge others?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
No, instead understanding behind thought processes.Grigoris wrote:Are you looking for excuses?
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
The Buddha says that kingdoms have a right to defend themselves against aggressors. He also points out that people who kill each other in combat all go to hell. So kings and soldiers may, for the welfare of their kingdoms defend them with arms, but the sacrifice is much greater than merely losing one's life.Joka wrote:This probably has been discussed ad nauseaum but I am wondering in all the many Buddhist traditions if there is ever the notion of justified war or conflict.
.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
Certainly some level of discernment or judgement of others in this world becomes necessary concerning the act of survival.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with what is going on behind your thought processes, right? Just those of others.Joka wrote:No, instead understanding behind thought processes.Grigoris wrote:Are you looking for excuses?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
I'm a bit of a Buddhist secularist where I am at a stand still in regards to an afterlife or supernatural realities. Still upon a path of self discovery in those regards.Malcolm wrote:The Buddha says that kingdoms have a right to defend themselves against aggressors. He also points out that people who kill each other in combat all go to hell. So kings and soldiers may, for the welfare of their kingdoms defend them with arms, but the sacrifice is much greater than merely losing one's life.Joka wrote:This probably has been discussed ad nauseaum but I am wondering in all the many Buddhist traditions if there is ever the notion of justified war or conflict.
.
-
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
This would depend if the person killing did so as a complete karma.Malcolm wrote:The Buddha says that kingdoms have a right to defend themselves against aggressors. He also points out that people who kill each other in combat all go to hell. So kings and soldiers may, for the welfare of their kingdoms defend them with arms, but the sacrifice is much greater than merely losing one's life.Joka wrote:This probably has been discussed ad nauseaum but I am wondering in all the many Buddhist traditions if there is ever the notion of justified war or conflict.
.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
I ask because of practical reasons regarding the world we live in that is entrenched in violence and conflict. One can't help but have deep seated questions regarding this particular subject.Grigoris wrote:Which, of course, has nothing to do with what is going on behind your thought processes, right? Just those of others.Joka wrote:No, instead understanding behind thought processes.Grigoris wrote:Are you looking for excuses?
I believe non-violence is the highest maximum ideal and certainly should be aspired towards as it is noble however I have doubts that nonviolence as an ideal can always be retained for every situation or environment of life as we know it as well.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
There is that, but the Buddha does not make this distinction. He assumes warriors like violence.amanitamusc wrote:This would depend if the person killing did so as a complete karma.Malcolm wrote:The Buddha says that kingdoms have a right to defend themselves against aggressors. He also points out that people who kill each other in combat all go to hell. So kings and soldiers may, for the welfare of their kingdoms defend them with arms, but the sacrifice is much greater than merely losing one's life.Joka wrote:This probably has been discussed ad nauseaum but I am wondering in all the many Buddhist traditions if there is ever the notion of justified war or conflict.
.
-
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
The Buddha intuitively knows?Malcolm wrote:There is that, but the Buddha does not make this distinction. He assumes warriors like violence.amanitamusc wrote:This would depend if the person killing did so as a complete karma.Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha says that kingdoms have a right to defend themselves against aggressors. He also points out that people who kill each other in combat all go to hell. So kings and soldiers may, for the welfare of their kingdoms defend them with arms, but the sacrifice is much greater than merely losing one's life.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
The old adage that malice thrives when people do nothing at all or sit idly by I suppose is a big problem for me concerning pacifism and the non-aggression principle. I suppose that is why I created this thread.
More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
It's not clear that wars are started out of malice. Usually, it seems to be a fight for natural resources, and that fight is sometimes politicized into making it look like something more "civilized" ("fighting for democracy" and such).Joka wrote:More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
Some assumptions worth looking into are:
"Those who are the victims in a war are innocent."
"Those who win a war are morally superior."
To quote myself from a post at the sister site, Dhammawheel:
binocular wrote:When it comes to a war, it's not possible to plan in advance that one will be on the winning side. This is why arguments in favor of war made later on by people who happened to end up on the winning side cannot serve as a sound basis for reasoning in favor of going to war.
When going to a war, there are only two outcomes: you could win, or you could lose; and you can't guarantee you will win.
So the question is: Are you ready to lose a war?
Do give a compelling reason for going to war even at the prospect of losing it.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 60#p415910
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
With conscripts and people who join the military because it seems like the most accessible way out of poverty, the situation seems more complex.Malcolm wrote:There is that, but the Buddha does not make this distinction. He assumes warriors like violence.
How many people who are nowadays in the military would actually qualify as warriors, as ksatriyas? My guess is, very few.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
I find that the most uncivil people you will ever meet are the ones that call themselves civil. I think you're correct in your assessment of natural resources and of course when we dwell into social stratification of society the discussion then goes into usually of resource entitlements in describing who are more entitled to resources than others. In modern time we call that economics.binocular wrote:It's not clear that wars are started out of malice. Usually, it seems to be a fight for natural resources, and that fight is sometimes politicized into making it look like something more "civilized" ("fighting for democracy" and such).Joka wrote:More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
Some assumptions worth looking into are:
"Those who are the victims in a war are innocent."
"Those who win a war are morally superior."
To quote myself from a post at the sister site, Dhammawheel:
binocular wrote:When it comes to a war, it's not possible to plan in advance that one will be on the winning side. This is why arguments in favor of war made later on by people who happened to end up on the winning side cannot serve as a sound basis for reasoning in favor of going to war.
When going to a war, there are only two outcomes: you could win, or you could lose; and you can't guarantee you will win.
So the question is: Are you ready to lose a war?
Do give a compelling reason for going to war even at the prospect of losing it.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 60#p415910
I don't think anybody is prepared or even willing to lose which is why often enough the vanquished choose death over a lifetime of living failure.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
Joka wrote:The old adage that malice thrives when people do nothing at all or sit idly by I suppose is a big problem for me concerning pacifism and the non-aggression principle. I suppose that is why I created this thread.
More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
The Buddha's approach to defeating malice was to uproot it from yourself.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
To conquer it in oneself is a great thing but still there is a wide world of other people out there that do not share those convictions or ideals.Malcolm wrote:Joka wrote:The old adage that malice thrives when people do nothing at all or sit idly by I suppose is a big problem for me concerning pacifism and the non-aggression principle. I suppose that is why I created this thread.
More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
The Buddha's approach to defeating malice was to uproot it from yourself.
What is a Buddhist to do say in the presence of a group of people that above all else desire power and will do anything to keep that power including all spectrums of human unspeakable acts or behaviors? Does the Buddhist sit on their hands and feet sitting idle?
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
That very much depends. In most cases, I think Buddhists will flee such a situation or resist nonviolently— for example, TibetJoka wrote:To conquer it in oneself is a great thing but still there is a wide world of other people out there that do not share those convictions or ideals.Malcolm wrote:Joka wrote:The old adage that malice thrives when people do nothing at all or sit idly by I suppose is a big problem for me concerning pacifism and the non-aggression principle. I suppose that is why I created this thread.
More importantly I don't think pacifism or nonaggression is always up to the task of challenging and defeating human malice in the world.
The Buddha's approach to defeating malice was to uproot it from yourself.
What is a Buddhist to do say in the presence of a group of people that above all else desire power and will do anything to keep that power including all spectrums of human unspeakable acts or behaviors? Does the Buddhist sit on their hands and feet sitting idle?
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
Flee to where? Where in the world does sanctuary from all of this exist?Malcolm wrote:That very much depends. In most cases, I think Buddhists will flee such a situation or resist nonviolently— for example, TibetJoka wrote:To conquer it in oneself is a great thing but still there is a wide world of other people out there that do not share those convictions or ideals.Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's approach to defeating malice was to uproot it from yourself.
What is a Buddhist to do say in the presence of a group of people that above all else desire power and will do anything to keep that power including all spectrums of human unspeakable acts or behaviors? Does the Buddhist sit on their hands and feet sitting idle?
The type of world we are living in makes nonviolent resistance either impotent for change or an impossibility. Like I said before, nonviolence and nonaggression is a noble maximum highest ideal to aspire towards but I don't think it is an option for every environment, scenario, or situation.
This leads me to believe that sometimes war or fighting is necessary and can be justified.
Another reason I created this thread because in ancient past Buddhist warrior monks like the Sohei fought very passionately for what they believed in.
Re: Notion Of Justified War Or Violence.
You have to be kidding. Nonviolence is the only avenue for resistance against oppression unless you are prepared to destroy whole economies.Joka wrote:Flee to where? Where in the world does sanctuary from all of this exist?Malcolm wrote:That very much depends. In most cases, I think Buddhists will flee such a situation or resist nonviolently— for example, TibetJoka wrote:
To conquer it in oneself is a great thing but still there is a wide world of other people out there that do not share those convictions or ideals.
What is a Buddhist to do say in the presence of a group of people that above all else desire power and will do anything to keep that power including all spectrums of human unspeakable acts or behaviors? Does the Buddhist sit on their hands and feet sitting idle?
The type of world we are living in makes nonviolent resistance either impotent for change or an impossibility.
As I said, Buddha stated that virtuous nations have a right to defend themselves.This leads me to believe that sometimes war or fighting is necessary and can be justified.
This is a Japanese corruption of Buddhadharma.Another reason I created this thread because in ancient past Buddhist warrior monks like the Sohei fought very passionately for what they believed in.