PDA

View Full Version : Is war ever justified ?



Aloka
17 Apr 10, 01:11
Could violence and war ever be justified from a Buddhist point of view?

plwk
17 Apr 10, 02:01
In my worthless opinion...
Yes, only in relation to eradicating one's own defilements...
Other than that...it will just be the case of Bush Jr justifying it for Bush Sr.'s feather cap...so no...
Military service....that's another sticky topic..

Esho
17 Apr 10, 02:27
Could violence and war ever be justified from a Buddhist point of view?

In my personal opinion, not from a Buddhist point of view.

There would not be any need for war or the use of violent means if there is a pacefull mind, if there is a Right View about things, if there is awarness. One of the goal of Buddhist practice is to be aware of our own violent feelings so not to be caught up by them and endeger ourselfs and others.

But I am open to different aproaches from other buddhist points of view about this topic.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Pink_trike
17 Apr 10, 02:59
It isn't within the purview of Buddhism to justify war or not. The sole objective of the path is to refine one's perception of the phenomenal world.

Aloka
17 Apr 10, 04:08
It isn't within the purview of Buddhism to justify war or not. The sole objective of the path is to refine one's perception of the phenomenal world.

If violence happens within one's country, or an invading force starts taking over, then what ? What if one's country requires military service?

frank
17 Apr 10, 04:10
from post #4

Pink true.

Think it must take a great deal of courage to be a conscientious objector.

Pink_trike
17 Apr 10, 04:59
However if violence happens within a country or an invading force starts taking over, then what ?

We'll likely do our best to minimize harm, but because we're not awake yet we don't have the clarity of perception needed to know what that means, or to know the wisest course of action. We'll each do what we do as we react to immediate circumstances in the absence of this clarity - because we're trapped in our cloudy and estranged perception of the phenomenal world.

We stumble around blind and endangering even in our best intentions - this is why we practice...because we don't know.

Pink_trike
17 Apr 10, 05:07
Think it must take a great deal of courage to be a conscientious objector

I was one, but I was motivated less by courage, and more by an aversion of murder and a craving for righteousness. Both just more dukkha.

frank
17 Apr 10, 05:15
from post #8

Yes maybe the second most difficult thing is to be a person,the most difficult to be a parent.

Aloka
17 Apr 10, 07:54
I recall a Tibetan Buddhist teacher at a talk a long time ago saying that if one knew for sure that someone was going to kill lots of people then killing that person would probably be the best option.

But how does one know for sure if one isn't enlightened ? Might this action then perhaps cause other unforseen events which would cause even more suffering? . http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

plogsties
17 Apr 10, 12:10
from post #10

Agreed. Would anyone challange the idea that killing Hitler would have been unskillful - once it was known what his plans were?

Esho
17 Apr 10, 15:41
We stumble around blind and endangering even in our best intentions - this is why we practice...because we don't know.

Cetainly Pink dear,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
17 Apr 10, 16:07
Might this action then perhaps cause other unforseen events which would cause even more suffering?

This is a good point... I don't have a definitive answere for this but sometimes I think it is good to let things happen the way they have to. Sometimes we are deluded by what we think is good or bad.

But I realy don't know.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

gerrymob
18 Apr 10, 10:19
I have to be careful on this subject. I volunteered and served in the British army for nine years, one tour was on active service and I came under fire. As a young seventeen and a half year old and not having known much if anything about Buddhism being a soldier was what I had always wanted to do from very early childhood.

Is war and killing in war justified? Most people will answer the question with another question. Would you defend your family from an external aggressive army? Would you let them kill you parents, wife, children and you community without fighting back?

Having been a practising Buddhist for many years some of my views on war have changed, I certainly would not have gone to war on some of the recent expeditions of the UK government.

What if another country and its people requested support against an aggressor who wanted to take their land, enslave their people and possibly eliminate them completely as has happened in mine and all our lifetimes. Pogroms, holocausts, ethnic cleansing, all happening now before our eyes. Do we standback and shrug our shoulders as most western governments do?

This is a sticky one. Have any of our more well read contributors on the site know what the Buddah had to say on this subject, if anything.

Peace

Gerry

Aloka
18 Apr 10, 18:15
Have any of our more well read contributors on the site know what the Buddah had to say on this subject, if anything.

You will find some references here Gerry: (see URL)

"Violence in Society : A Study of the Early Buddhist Texts "


URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/harris/wheel392.html)

If you put key words in the 'search' facility at that site you will be able to find Pali Canon sutta references for them.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

plwk
19 Apr 10, 01:43
1. From one of my admired Monastic personality, the late Chief Rev Dr K Sri Dhammananda, Maha Thera Nayaka of Malaysia & Singapore, in his writing: War & Peace (http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Dr._K._Sri_Dhammananda:_Chapter_15:_War_and_Peace)

2. From one discussion here (http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=297)

3. Magadhans & Vajjis: Mahaparinibbana Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html)

4. Excerpts from the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra:

http://www.ymba.org/bns/bnsframe.htm
1. First Major Precept
On Killing
A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.

As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a Parajika (major) offense.

10. On Storing Deadly Weapons
A disciple of the Buddha should not store weapons such as knives, clubs, bows, arrows, spears, axes or any other weapons, nor may he keep nets, traps or any such devices used in destroying life.

As a disciple of the Buddha, he must not even avenge the death of his parents -- let alone kill sentient beings! He should not store any weapons or devices that can be used to kill sentient beings. If he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.

11. On Serving as an Emissary
A disciple of the Buddha shall not, out of personal benefit or evil intentions, act as a country's emissary to foster military confrontation and war causing the slaughter of countless sentient beings. As a disciple of the Buddha, he should not be involved in military affairs, or serve as a courier between armies, much less act as a willing catalyst for war. If he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.
(Commentary: 55. A Bodhisattva should not act as a country's emissary for the purpose of spying or fostering war. However, if he were to do so to put an end to war or military confrontation, he would be acting in a spirit of compassion. The key words in this precept are for personal benefit or evil intention.)

21. On Violence and Vengefulness
A disciple of the Buddha must not return anger for anger, blow for blow. He should not seek revenge, even if his father, mother, siblings, or close relatives are killed -- nor should he do so if the ruler or king of his country is murdered. To take the life of one being in order to avenge the killing of another is contrary to filial piety [as we are all related through the eons of birth and rebirth].
(Commentary:67. A Bodhisattva must not return anger for anger. This is because wherever there is anger, all compassion is lost. "To seek revenge and maim and kill and prosecute" is to create the causes of future sufferings and ensure that they will never end. Even today, this lesson has unfortunately not been learned despite all the hindsight available to us from past warfare and genocide: "President Clinton came [to Kigali] today to talk to scarred and mutilated survivors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and to acknowledge that the world could have protected them, though it did not . . . Both in his meeting with the victims and the speech to an invited audience here, Mr. Clinton called for sharper vigilance against genocide and swifter prosecution of its perpetrators ..." (NY Times: March 26, 1998).

N.B. Buddhists do not cultivate a sense of vengefuless because they realize that sentient beings know only Cause and Effect in the present, but not in past or future lifetimes. The present perpetrators might have been the victims in a previous lifetime; thus, to exact retribution now may be to jeopardize the parents of one lifetime in order to avenge the parents of another! This truth can be glimpsed in the current wave of ethnic conflicts in Africa and the Balkans.)
5. A story...

http://www.thuvienhoasen.org/phatphapcanban1-11.htm
Two years before the Buddha's passing, his clan met with a great misfortune. Vidudabha, a son of King Prasenajit of Kosala and of the daughter of one of the Sakya rajas, was on a visit to his mother's family, where he was insulted for his low birth. Enraged, he vowed to take revenge on the Sakya. Undeterred by the expostulations of the Buddha, he, after, the death of his father, marched against Kapilavastu and put to the sword the whole Sakya clan.
According to Buddhist legends, Kosala was a large kingdom in Northern India with strong military might. Before he took refuge in the Buddha, King Prasenajit of Kosala had gone to the neighboring state of Kapilavastu to seek a bride among the Sakya clan. The Sakya clan looked upon itself as the superior clan and reluctantly passed off their maid Mallika as a princess for the marriage. King Prasenajit loved Mallika deeply. She bored him Prince Vidudabha. When the Prince was eight years old, he once went to Kapilavastu to play and to tour the newly completed lecture hall. The Sakya clan despised the Prince as being born of a maid and ridiculed him, thus sowing the seeds of feud and vendetta. After King Prasenajit died, the Prince ascended to the throne as King Vidudabha. In revenge of the ealier contempt, the King sent troops across the border.
To rescue the innocent Sakya clan from this disasters, the Buddha, sat quietly under a withered, waiting for King Vidudabha to arrive with his troops. As expected, King Vidudabha passed by with his army. When he saw the Buddha, he had to dismount to greet the Buddha, and asked: "Why do you choose to sit and meditate under a withered tree?" The Buddha replied: "This is a very good. The shade of a relative's clan is better than other shades. The Buddha's statement moved king Vidudabha deeply. He immediately ordered a retreat of his troops. The fire of war were extinguished for the time being. However, King Vidudabha could not dimiss the feeling of enemy. He led troops for yet another fight. Along the way, he again met the Buddha and was persuaded to withdraw his troops. This happened three times. However, eventually King Vidudabha's troops invaded and seized Kapilavastu, ready to massacre the people in the city. Maudgalyayana was compassionate and was moved to wield his supernatural powers. He collected 500 outstanding talents from among the Sakya clan in his begging bowl in order to save them. But later, when he reopened the bowl, he found that they had all turned into blood. King Vidudabha entered the city and captured thirty thousand military and civilian personnel. He planned to bury them alive from the waist down into the ground, and then sent elephants to trample them to death. Mahanaman, son of King Amrtodana, cousin of the Buddha and uncle of King Vidudabha, had succeeded to the throne as King of Kapilavastu. He ruled his kingdom well with loving kindness. For the sake of saving lives, King Mahanaman begged of King Vidudabha to let him dive to the bottom of the River, and before he came out of the water, to allow the thirty-thousand captives run for their lives. As to those who could not escape they would remain at the victor's disposal. King Vidudabha thought to himself, "No matter how good you are at diving, you could not be under the water until all the thirty-thousand have escaped!" So he agreed. After the thirty-thousand people has all fled the city, King Mahanaman was still underwater. King Vidudabha then sent his men diving into the river to find out why. In fact, King Mahanaman had tied his hair to the roots of trees at the bottom of the river and held rocks with his two hands. He had courageously given up his own precious life to save his subjects. King Vidudabha occupied the kingdom of Kapilavastu, but shortly afterwards, the palace was on fire. Both he and his beloved concubines were not be able to escape because they were soundly sleeping. All of them were burned to death. It clearly showed the certainty of cause and consequence.
6. Buddhist Military Sangha (http://buddhistmilitarysangha.blogspot.com/)

7. The Dhammapada

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.

Esho
19 Apr 10, 02:02
from post #16

Thanks plwk dear,

I still feel and think that I do not justify war or violence from a buddhist perspective. One who has the Right View about things has no need for violent means. This means that war, as an extreme expresion of a violent mind, maybe has its root in the three "Buddhist Poisons": Greed, Hatred and Delusion wich are overcome thorugh the deep realization of the Four Noble Truths, the commitment with the Eightfold Noble Path and the full dedication and discipline in cultivating a stillness, dispasionate and pacefull mind impregnated in awarness and full consiusness.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
19 Apr 10, 02:18
from post #15

Thanks Dazz dear for the ]http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/img/smilies/hands.gif[/img]

thundreams
19 Apr 10, 02:42
from post #15

Thanks Dazz great reference.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

gerrymob
19 Apr 10, 07:11
from post #14

I have yet to receive a reply/comments to most of my post #14.

A similar question when asked also leaves one waiting for an answer and that is the for and against capital punishment. Most people are against capital punishment but when given the situation where a family member is murdered what are their thoughts in that situation?

Sorry for bringing another topic in but very similar situations and over the years I have yet to receive a positive answer to both topics.

Peace

Gerry

Aloka
19 Apr 10, 11:40
from post #14

Hi Gerry,

I think if these issues are in the hands of our governments then we're powerless as individuals to do anything other than vote, protest, or refuse to fight, depending on personal choices.

As for the question of killing within the context of being a Buddhist practitioner, references have been provided by both plwk and myself.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif



from post #20

As our membership is worldwide, some members are resident in places where there is capital punishment for murder.

In my view to kill someone as a punishment for murder is an "eye for an eye" mentality and not part of Buddhist teachings or practice.

If someone killed a relative, what possible benefit, as a practitioner,would there be in seeing that person killed too ? None.

frank
19 Apr 10, 12:04
From a Buddhist point of view it's most probably correct to say that war is a mark of failure.

I can understand that young guys are full of vim and pepper and want to 'sort out the world',put it to rights.
This is a great ego trip. As for our leaders encouraging the common people to go to war,well what can we expect from a politician?

The sad thing is we allow such ...... to dictate our views. We must be really stupid to allow this.
Wake up,take control of your own life.

Esho
19 Apr 10, 14:19
In my view to kill someone as a punishment for murder is an "eye for an eye" mentality and not part of Buddhist teachings or practice.

If someone killed a relative, what possible benefit, as a practitioner,would there be in seeing that person killed too ? None.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif



From a Buddhist point of view it's most probably correct to say that war is a mark of failure.

True frank dear, thanks

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif



The sad thing is we allow such ...... to dictate our views. We must be really stupid to allow this.
Wake up,take control of your own life.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

gerrymob
19 Apr 10, 17:09
from post #21

Dazzle

The proof of the pudding will be when we, as individuals, are in the positions I have stated previously.

I do not believe that anyone, a Buddhist practitioner or otherwise can answer my questions until the time comes.

We can state what we should or should not do as followers of Buddhism but when the crunch comes and the fan starts whirring around, then and only then will we decide what action/s to take.

Peace

Gerry

Sobeh
19 Apr 10, 19:18
I do not believe that anyone, a Buddhist practitioner or otherwise can answer my questions until the time comes.

...until the time comes? What a strange way to avoid answering those questions yourself.



Is war and killing in war justified?

No.



Would you defend your family from an external aggressive army?

Yes; the response would hardly be considered 'war' as in this instance it is one family against an army. Even in cases of nation v. nation, however, creative responses infuse the idea of 'defend' with a slew of nonviolent possibilities.



Would you let them kill you parents, wife, children and you community without fighting back?

No; 'fighting back' is the same as 'defense' in that it can have many meanings, and the one that defines fighting back as 'war' or 'killing' is wholly unnecessary.



What if another country and its people requested support against an aggressor who wanted to take their land, enslave their people and possibly eliminate them completely as has happened in mine and all our lifetimes.

'Support' is yet another example of a word that has so many applications that lending itself to the sole denotation "war" or "killing" is disingenuous.



I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

A Buddhist would probably interject that the evil done was temporary as well, but this doesn't change the brute fact that alternatives to war and killing abound, and are furthermore proven effective. Have a look at the timeline you can find here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent_resistance) for examples of this.

One last thing: when trying to accomplish a task, there are three variables of note, from which you can always choose two. The three variables are Speed, Quality, and Cost. For example, if you want something quickly and cheaply, be prepared for shoddy quality. If you want something valuable and cheaply, however, be prepared to spend a lot of time.

So it is: war and killing is at great cost, I think we can agree, but so too are instances of non-violence in the face of the same circumstances. Cost is a common variable here.

The difference, then, between violent resolution and peaceful resolution is the difference between accomplishing something quickly, or with quality. Peace is the clear choice of long-term value here.

War is not justified.

halfcajun
19 Apr 10, 21:51
Hello all:
I was a soldier. I served in the US Army for 4 years. I actaully volunteered for several reasons- service, as a crucible, opportunity to travel, etc. I like to say 'my bad,' but I won't. I learned a lot of lessons in the Army. Good & bad ones.
I made the best of it- I was a combat medic and x-ray. I told the sergeants that I wouldn't kill anyone, but I'd sure patch them up.
When my tour was up, I was very ready to leave. The sergeant-major who was conducting my exit interview asked me why I was leaving the military. I told him as gently as I could that I couldn't be a part of a "death mentality" anymore.
Re. the question on killing to defend your family...I would fail as a Buddhist.
If someone was trying to hurt my son, and <u>lethal force was my only option</u> to save him, then yes, I would kill his attacker.
This situation is like the questions one has in philosophy classes. One where the many variables that are usually present in life have been taken removed. And one is left with A or B.
Actually, I was tested on this in real life.
I won't go into the details, but one night, I had a loaded firearm pointed at someone who meant to come into our house. He meant to do my family harm.
So what does one do? Well, without lowering the weapon, I talked him into leaving. Truthfully, I prob. would have shot and killed him if I had come further in our home. I wouldn'y have missed and at that range , the wounds would've been lethal.
I remember my finger on the trigger, praying I wouldn't have to pull it.
I'm glad I didn't have to.
Meta to all,
Bill

Esho
19 Apr 10, 23:26
War is not justified.

by any reason... but if you need reasons for it, just get entangled with the reasons of the "warmakers".

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
20 Apr 10, 00:38
from post #25



if you

Hello Sobeh dear,

I agree with your post #25 so the "if you" in my post is not directed personaly to you Sobeh dear, but as the plural and for people in general; I should wrote "if one" instead.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
20 Apr 10, 00:51
When my tour was up, I was very ready to leave. The sergeant-major who was conducting my exit interview asked me why I was leaving the military. I told him as gently as I could that I couldn't be a part of a "death mentality" anymore.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif



Re. the question on killing to defend your family...I would fail as a Buddhist.

but...



I'm glad I didn't have to.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

I think that you have not failed as a Buddhist. I do not think that to practice buddhism is about letting a killer murder your family. That can be prevented without harboring hatred feelings as explained in Sobeh's post # 25 where there is a clearly explanation of "defending with no violent posibilities".

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

frank
20 Apr 10, 11:59
by any reason... but if you need reasons for it, just get entangled with the reasons of the "warmakers".

I think a large part of the problem lays in the vast profits to be made by 'defence' contractors.
Maybe if a way could be devised to limit the profits then war would not be such an 'attractive' option.

halfcajun
20 Apr 10, 14:04
from post #29

Thanks for the input, Kaarine. You, as always, are generous with your thoughtfulness and kindness.

Pink_trike
20 Apr 10, 15:32
Maybe if a way could be devised to limit the profits then war would not be such an 'attractive' option.

Indeed. Some economic analysts say that our global economy depends on the continued success of the business model known as "war"...meaning that war has become necessary for our current infrastructures to survive.

gerrymob
20 Apr 10, 20:51
I believe some of us are saying that in certain circumstances kiling is justified as practising Buddhists.

Peace

Gerry

Sobeh
20 Apr 10, 20:59
I believe some of us are saying that in certain circumstances kiling is justified as practising Buddhists.


I'm not. Killing other humans in war is clearly not justified because it is never the "only choice". It is a choice of expediency, and not of value, as I have shown.

Esho
20 Apr 10, 21:41
from post #33

Why you believe that Gerry?

halfcajun
20 Apr 10, 21:54
from post #34

Sobeh:
Totally agree. It is expediency; and a failure of intelligence.

Esho
20 Apr 10, 21:58
from post #36

Yes, I agree too...

Om

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

frank
21 Apr 10, 12:19
...meaning that war has become necessary for our current infrastructures to survive

Yes my point,it would seem that the 'developed' and 'civilized' countries have their economies based on war.
I would suggest that fear is the motivating factor for maintaining this posture. (Greed is a subsidiary of fear)

Blueseasparkling
29 May 10, 05:31
I don't believe that killing is justified within Buddhist values or disciplined practices however I think it occurs and by Buddhists due to their current inability to resolve some practical issues without inadvertently killing and a difficulty implementing the ideals within their current consciousness and lives.

I really liked this video from the Dalai Lama that is simple and direct and speaks to the bigger social issue of killing such as war:

Dalai Lama: Peace means Happiness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9dZuuY8OPo#)

And this one, which also is humorous and talks about the smaller individual issues around killing for example, mosquitos:

Dalai Lama: Happiness, Compassion and Mosquitos (funny) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFZ-DUx71w#)

Aloka
24 Jun 10, 11:09
I found this recently :

"Dalai Lama Praises British Troops "

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/06/17/dalai-lama-praises-british-troops-91466-26675299/

Esho
25 Jun 10, 15:22
Reply to Dazz # 39,

Quoted from the article:

Naturally, there are some times when we need to take what on the surface appears to be harsh or tough action, but if our motivation is good our action is actually nonviolent in nature.

“On the other hand if we use sweet words and gestures to deceive, exploit and take advantage of others, our conduct may appear agreeable, while we are actually engaged in quite unacceptable violence.”

In Soto Zen we do not accept this issue about having good intentions and then acting in an unwholesome way. We understand the Eightfold Noble Path as a whole, as an organic teaching. With not such "step by step" method. If the Eightfold Noble Path is well understood and well practiced we can remember that it start with the Right View that is for us the essence of it. This Right View, if accomplished then the rest is given by itself. No violent, no intention for war and killing others are about in the Right View and it is nonsense this common idea of good intentions and unwholesome actions. An Unwholesome action tells that one has not developed Right View and there is no room for "good intentions". Having good intentions isn't about what Buddhism is.

Gyoji is the essence for this practice and it is very demanding. A huge amout of zazen and discipline is needed. Every body can harbor "good intentions". A good intention is about selfishness. Once Right View is developed there is no such good or bad intentions. You just act acodingly to the Right View. And Right View is devoided of such goodness or badness as it is dispasionate in nature.

He added: “It is my prayer that all of you may be able to do your duty and fulfil your mission and in due course when that is done to return to your homes and families.”

And the home and families of the supposed "enemy"?

There are 380 Buddhists serving in the UK’s armed forces, according to the Ministry of Defence.

I can't understand who you can tell yourself a Buddhist and to be trained to bare in your mind killing people.

Any way... This do not surprises me... I have ever felt that the Dalai Lama is another politician with a personal issue.

:hands:

Deshy
25 Jun 10, 16:53
Could violence and war ever be justified from a Buddhist point of view?

There is nothing inherently wrong in it but killing does not agree with Buddhist morality. It's a violation of one of the five precepts no matter what reason it is done for. So, from a moral point of view, it is not right

Deshy
25 Jun 10, 16:59
Yes my point,it would seem that the 'developed' and 'civilized' countries have their economies based on war.
I would suggest that fear is the motivating factor for maintaining this posture. (Greed is a subsidiary of fear)

Developed and civilized should mean there is peace and well-being for everyone to begin with. Development is not mere material development gained by economical strength. Fact is, most so called "developed and civilized" societies of modern day are not civilized at all when there is so much corruption, killing, violence around.

Esho
25 Jun 10, 17:01
Reply to 41 and 41...

Agree Deshy

clw_uk
25 Jun 10, 17:56
Depends on what path one wants to follow


If one follows Dhamma then one can never condone or be involved with war since its emmersed in clinging and dukkha



However if one wishes to follow the way of the world then war can be justified, as in the case of the Allies V the Nazi's


I think its important to remember that Buddhadhamma is not a comandment. Its not "Thou shal not". Its a teaching of choice, you can choose the world or the Dhamma


Choose the Dhamma and you are free of Dukkha

Chose the way of the world and you are bound to dukkha


So I would say one can justify and even fight in a "just war" as long as one is aware that such a way is not in accord with Dhamma and is bound to dukkha


metta

clw_uk
25 Jun 10, 18:02
This article influenced me to look up Ashoka, thought this quote after a battle that Ashoka was involved in was quite striking




What have I done? If this is a victory, what's a defeat then? Is this a victory or a defeat? Is this justice or injustice? Is it gallantry or a rout? Is it valor to kill innocent children and women? Do I do it to widen the empire and for prosperity or to destroy the other's kingdom and splendor? One has lost her husband, someone else a father, someone a child, someone an unborn infant.... What's this debris of the corpses? Are these marks of victory or defeat? Are these vultures, crows, eagles the messengers of death or evil?

Esho
25 Jun 10, 19:13
This article influenced me to look up Ashoka, thought this quote after a battle that Ashoka was involved in was quite striking

Thanks Craig dear for the quote... there is nothing to tell... its very clear...

:hands:

fivebells
26 Jun 10, 16:36
Could violence and war ever be justified from a Buddhist point of view? To the extent that there is justification going on, it's not a Buddhist point of view.