The Zen Buddhist Nuclear Weapons Expert in Trump's White House

[Jundo]

I will comment more later. I will just note for now that Zen Buddhism and the Precepts can be shaped and turned into many forms: For some, war is an instrument of peace, nuclear weapons a means to preserve life.

I do not personally agree, but not all Buddhists are of one flavor.

A senior official in the White House tasked with advising President Donald Trump on weapons of mass destruction is an ordained Zen Buddhist chaplain, who long ago reconciled Buddhism's non-violent teachings with his support for aggressive, sometimes violent American foreign policy.
Christopher A. Ford, special assistant to the president and National Security Council senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counterproliferation, who is also a former Navy reserve intelligence officer, a Rhodes scholar and a State Department veteran, was ordained in the Prajna Mountain Order of Soto Zen Buddhism at the Upaya Institute and Zen Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico in March 2010.

...

The first, from 2009, is six pages, titled "Nukes and the Vow: Security Strategy as Peacework" and argues that Buddhists should not blindly latch onto complete global nuclear disarmament in the name of peace if their goal is indeed to "create a world that contains as little human suffering as possible." Nuclear weapons, Ford said, may be necessary for such an end.

"One foreign diplomat friend of mine likes to joke, at least privately, that the disarmament movement needs to be careful lest it 'make the world safe again for largescale conventional war,'" writes Ford, who took on the name Daigan during the training. "He is only partly joking, however. From the perspective of Buddhist compassion, some global security environments without nuclear weapons are surely less desirable than some scenarios that contain them. We must do what we can to avoid offering cures more harmful than the disease we seek to treat, and while it is notoriously difficult to predict outcomes -- one way or the other -- in the complex adaptive system of modern international politics, we are no friends of compassion if we do not at least worry about the potential unintended consequences of our policy agendas."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-zen-buddhist-nuclear-weapons-expert-in-trumps-white-house?source=twitter&via=mobile

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[Byokan]

Thank you Jundo,

ah, Consequentialism in a kesa. I can't quite go there, but am fascinated and curious to know more about his stance and arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Gassho
Byōkan
sat + lah

[Mp]

Thank you Jundo ... perception can be deception in so many cases. What one sees is not always the best course of action, even though one believes it.

Gassho
Shingen

SatToday/LAH

[Seido]

Maybe he's right. Using nukes can indeed end all suffering on this earth, perhaps just not in the way he thinks...

Gassho,
Said
SatToday/LAH

[Jundo]

This is a discussion that will echo in our ongoing Jukai reflections on the Precepts.

In the West, folks involved in Zen seem to be overwhelmingly politically liberal, peacenik types who go from "Occupy Wall Street" rallies to the Zendo.

However, I learned a few years ago through some dear Zen friends in Florida, that there are liberal Buddhist folks and conservative Buddhist folks. We sometimes forget this, but interpretations of Practice and Precepts can lead people to different conclusions. Although many in Western Buddhism tend to associate Buddhist Practice and the Precepts with having to hold rather 'Lefty' political views (probably because so many convert Buddhists in the West seem to be Latte drinking, Prius driving political liberals ), that is not necessarily the case. I have many Western Zen friends who are politically conservative, favoring, for example, George W. Bush to Obama, thinking the war in Iraq justified and in keeping with the Precepts as an action ultimately intended to preserve human lives, opposing relaxed Abortion laws as the taking of life, opposing Gay Marriage, large scale government funded social programs and the like ... all in keeping with their personal view of the Precepts. In fact, Buddhist folks will engage in ethical debate on such topics, much as Christians might have opposing views on "What would Jesus do?"

In fact, the only political views that clearly should not be combined with Buddhism are, for example, to be a Buddhist Nazi, K.K.K. member, Trotskyist, bomb throwing Anarchist or a like violent path because of the violent, divisive, hate-filled content. course to help this world and its people, to avoid harm and benefit sentient beings.

The prevalent interpretations found in Asia of the Precepts might be considered rather "conservative" to many Westerners on certain topics, very progressive on other topics.
In much of Asia, Buddhism has traditionally been, at various times in its history, both a social revolutionary force ... and (probably for most of its history) a very conservative force unwilling to overly "rock the boat" in the traditional, feudal and otherwise undemocratic societies in which it has found itself, ranging from old Samurai Japan to the modern People's Republic of China. The Buddha professed peace and non-violence, yet rarely if ever told an Indian king to disband his armies or take a fully non-violent path (the Buddha himself was from a warrior caste, knew the realities of the world. He seems largely to have stayed out of politics and let kings be kings, advising them to be just and fair, but not much on the details of that). Just as in the Catholic Church, there are clerics who are far far to the right in their views, and far to the left ... often inspired by Marxism and the like ... and many who just stay out of politics altogether. Once, in Japan, the Precepts were interpreted in ways to support the country, the Emperor and the military during the war. Sometimes it was simple patriotism, sometimes it was excess militarism and jingoism, sometimes it was done out of prejudice and cultural superiority, sometimes it was done simply out of differing views on what is the best way to ultimately protect society and save lives. (My Teacher, Nishijima Gudo Wafu Roshi, was very much against WWII, thought it a terrible tragedy and mistake on Japan's part, said that Kodo Sawaki, for example, professed the same, although also supportive of his country and the soldiers in the field) ...

http://sweepingzen.com/zen-at-war-brian-victoria-throwing-bombs-at-kodo-by-jundo-cohen/

But also, my Teacher, Nishijima, used to profess sometimes a few very socially conservative views on politics that I did not always personally agree with (not surprising coming from a 90 year old Japanese man, like listening to your grandfather's view of the world). However, I came to realize that I came to him for spiritual advice, not advice on how to fix the carburetor on my car, cook tomato soup or about whom to vote for. The Precepts are black and white on many issues, but ambiguous with grey areas in many more areas. Such is the nature of this complex world, Samsara, where we live.

In my case, I do not think that my political views are much different from my younger days, except I do make the effort to run my views through the lens of the Precepts, Wisdom and Compassion. They guide me in forming opinions on questions such as on abortion, going to war after 9-11 and the like ... but yet there remains much room for discussion on so many of these issues, and various sides.

Then again, there are certain lines where, when crossed, thing become more black and white again. To me, it is impossible to see how any monks or sincere Buddhist could support the violence and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya. It seems that the vast majority of Buddhists around the world would agree with me. However, obviously (just looking at some of the posts by some Buddhists on the internet) not all Buddhists do. I believe that they are wrong, but I am not the final word unfortunately.

I do look forward to a world which, someday in the future, is filled with the peace, non-violence, love, environmental concern for the world, avoidance of excess consumerism and materialism, building schools and hospitals instead of bombs, and better sharing and caring for our fellow sentient beings that I believe is at the heart of Buddhist values (and so many other religions and humanist philosophies too).

... I believe that when such a revolution comes, this world will leave behind so many of its current problems and excesses.

Gassho, Jundo

SatTodayLAH

[Kotei]

Maybe he's right. Using nukes can indeed end all suffering on this earth, perhaps just not in the way he thinks...

Gassho,
Said
SatToday/LAH

I like that one, thank you.
Gassho,
Kotei sat/lah today.

[Doshin]

As long as I am able to remember, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been the doctrine. As many old enough to remember, we prepared for a failure of that "policy" by practicing hiding under our desk at school. The Cuban Missle
Crisis brings vivid memories to me of watching my father digging a large hole in our back yard for a bomb shelter.

Gassho
Doshin
St/lah

[Jundo]

As long as I am able to remember, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been the doctrine. As many old enough to remember, we prepared for a failure of that "policy" by practicing hiding under our desk at school. The Cuban Missle
Crisis brings vivid memories to me of watching my father digging a large hole in our back yard for a bomb shelter.

Gassho
Doshin
St/lah

Yes, rather a hot topic these days for those of us in Japan, in range of North Korean rockets. Takes me back to my youth in Miami, 90 miles from Cuba ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMnKNHNfznE

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

So I read the article last night and I've considered Jundo's comments and so I will try to be polite and brief. Based on that article I think Mr. Ford was practicing some revisionist history when he mentions ""Truth be told, Engaged Buddhism in America is not so much a departure from this country’s noble if sometimes badly managed activism for the improvement of samsara [the cycle of life and death] as it is a manifestation of that very predilection." Much of the history of US intervention is about protecting its interests. Which includes destabilizing democratically elected governments as well as supporting dictators.

He even mentions that "being a Buddhist has little-to-no direct impact on his day-to-day job, any more than it would any other "basically spiritual person... caught up in the real world." Yet he also says "when it really matters is if you can do some aspect of that, if you can still get a whisper of that [centerness and peace] in the middle of the s**tshow that is some crisis day at the office. That's the real paydirt," he said." When you combine these two ideas you get the worst result of Buddhist practice one who is capable of great harm and is capable of sleeping it off.

I get that Buddhism with a capital B is a large house capable of housing multiple perspectives but some of this looks to me like way of reinforcing preexisting beliefs and attitudes (which touches on Jundo's point about the different interpretations of the precepts.) A wiser man and than me once said "The dullard is at risk of being fooled by others while the scholar is at risk of being fooled by themself" and I firmly believe this is the case. Its entirely possible for someone to start from faulty premise and build outwards never reflecting on the faulty premise. Eventually the faulty premise becomes cemented in not on its merits but on the weight of the otherwise reasonable arguments used to support it.

Keith Stanovich a Psychologist at the University of Toronoto has done research in this very area. I believe he referred to it as dysrationalia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia) The wikipedia article sums it up more or less as I remember it.

Either way, I think spiritual growth requires change with in a person not just peaceful aboding among chaos. If that's all you want might I suggest swinging by the nearest opium den (that's still a thing right? Opium dens?.)

Perhaps I'm being overly harsh in my writing but these are the cleaned up and focused version of what I've been thinking about after I read the article.

Thoughts?

Gassho

Hoseki
Sattoday/LAH

Edit: Toronoto is right next to Toronto Canada

[David]

Yes, rather a hot topic these days for those of us in Japan, in range of North Korean rockets. Takes me back to my youth in Miami, 90 miles from Cuba ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMnKNHNfznE

Gassho, J

SatTodayLAH

Takes me back to my youth too. I remember the Doomsday Clock getting to 3 minutes to midnight in 1984 when USSR invaded Afghanistan, it's just gone to 2.5 minutes to midnight.

[Risho]

First of all, I don't see the problem --> greater radiation = greater heat = it will be easier to make smores. So really you anti-nukers need to get over yourselves :P

Obviously kidding - I think the thing I try to focus on is to not attack the person who may have differing ideas than mine. They may be bat-shit crazy, etc, but I think what I see happening is that dialogue quickly breaks down and each person tries to attack the other personally, and that never helps.

These are weird times. Personally, I think of the US as a place that should be an anchor in this world. I know we are not perfect, but we have the ability to learn from our mistakes, freedom of speech, religion, etc. These are no small things and people have paid dearly to give us these things, so they should not be squandered.

Also as the US, I think it's completely irresponsible to even discuss the possibility of using a nuclear option. We are in an unenviable position of once you have them, it's hard to go back. At the same time, I think we have to be careful, especially at the executive branch of government to not use vitriolic language or give into other governments' use of provocative language. We need to be an anchor in the storm. We need to set precedent for how to treat our people and how to treat others, even our current "enemies" (as these frequently shift on the global stage). We need to be very careful with even entertaining war; that should always be the last option... the absolute last option. It should not be thrown around loosely. Nuclear weapons, war (even conventional) are horrific; we have to be extra careful with Right Speech in these circumstances.

A leader needs to be cool headed no matter the cause. People need to see that. In the end, the US President cannot just do anything they want thankfully. This is not a dictatorship, but they do set tone in the country, and I think that is their greatest power. They have the power to heal or harm with their words. Really people feel it; as much as I like to pretend to be an individual, it impacts me.

So that being said, I try to take that approach personally in my life as well. Even amidst the hatred or anger on all sides in this turbulent time, it's important not to take things too personally. It's important to argue logically and rationally. Most of all it's important to keep a cool head, not to lose one's self in anger, which is very hard at times, especially for me.

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

[Hoseki]

First of all, I don't see the problem --> greater radiation = greater heat = it will be easier to make smores. So really you anti-nukers need to get over yourselves :P

Obviously kidding - I think the thing I try to focus on is to not attack the person who may have differing ideas than mine. They may be bat-shit crazy, etc, but I think what I see happening is that dialogue quickly breaks down and each person tries to attack the other personally, and that never helps.

These are weird times. Personally, I think of the US as a place that should be an anchor in this world. I know we are not perfect, but we have the ability to learn from our mistakes, freedom of speech, religion, etc. These are no small things and people have paid dearly to give us these things, so they should not be squandered.

Also as the US, I think it's completely irresponsible to even discuss the possibility of using a nuclear option. We are in an unenviable position of once you have them, it's hard to go back. At the same time, I think we have to be careful, especially at the executive branch of government to not use vitriolic language or give into other governments' use of provocative language. We need to be an anchor in the storm. We need to set precedent for how to treat our people and how to treat others, even our current "enemies" (as these frequently shift on the global stage). We need to be very careful with even entertaining war; that should always be the last option... the absolute last option. It should not be thrown around loosely. Nuclear weapons, war (even conventional) are horrific; we have to be extra careful with Right Speech in these circumstances.

A leader needs to be cool headed no matter the cause. People need to see that. In the end, the US President cannot just do anything they want thankfully. This is not a dictatorship, but they do set tone in the country, and I think that is their greatest power. They have the power to heal or harm with their words. Really people feel it; as much as I like to pretend to be an individual, it impacts me.

So that being said, I try to take that approach personally in my life as well. Even amidst the hatred or anger on all sides in this turbulent time, it's important not to take things too personally. It's important to argue logically and rationally. Most of all it's important to keep a cool head, not to lose one's self in anger, which is very hard at times, especially for me.

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

Hi Risho,

I agree with most of what you said. Sounds very sensible. But if I think someone is lying or operating from faulty assumptions (e.g. relatively intelligent sensible people who occasionally mention the Jews controlling the world economy.) I might call them out on it. I'm all for open discussion of ideas but not everyone is an honest actor and sometimes people have a history of poor judgement (I wouldn't give Mr. Magoo a gun.) Case in point while discussing the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care act, Speaker of the House in the US, Paul Ryan, kept insisting that the people losing health care coverage would still health care coverage available to them. He never mentioned whether or not they could afford it whether or not it would cost more or less. The talking point is access to health care rather than actual health care. So in a situation like this he is using rhetoric to obscure the reality of repealing the act. In a case like that I think he should be called out for trying to deceive people.



Gassho,

Hoseki
Sattoday/LAH

[Risho]

Yep I agree with you wholeheartedly. I guess I was just pointing out that even if you are calling someone out, make sure not to get emotional; I"m really reminding myself because I love to debate and I'm good at shutting people down. I see a trend where debates, especially when the stakes are high, can devolve into bashing the other person; the argument loses focus and just gains this momentum of negativity. All of a sudden, we justify our position and remove someone else's humanity, and we risk becoming the same as what we are arguing against.

So I agree with you, like I said - if someone is just wrong then they need to be taken to task by showing where they are factually wrong. Again, to me it comes down to right speech. If we are talking politics, we need to be extremely precise in our arguments. It's easier, and frankly lazy, to broad brush things instead of having to justify argument with fact, but it must be done.

It's easy to blame a people for something that we are anxious about, or to broad brush (I guess it's my favorite word today lol) a culture as something or having some characteristic, and that's the danger. Stereotypes take something that happens in small cases and applies them to a larger whole. I know this is obvious; but it's worse case myopia, and it's a trend we see in humanity that I think this practice brings to light and can help save us all - I really believe that.

There is a fear that people have - we all have it - when we are afraid for our lives/security,etc it all comes down to the fear of death anyway. We can all be Nazi's. That's so important to realize. We should never entertain any of those views, but we must realize what we can become so that in arguing against some injustice we do so in a way that prevents us from wiping out the other side. We just have to be careful when we are arguing against someone else, not to lose ourselves, to turn "them" into "evil" people. It's a fine line.

Gassho

Risho
-sattoday/lah

[odiedoodie]

Democrat mass murderers are OK?

Curious that not a word was said when the fascist president Obama gave weapons of mass destruction to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are known murderers.

[Hoseki]

Yep I agree with you wholeheartedly. I guess I was just pointing out that even if you are calling someone out, make sure not to get emotional; I"m really reminding myself because I love to debate and I'm good at shutting people down. I see a trend where debates, especially when the stakes are high, can devolve into bashing the other person; the argument loses focus and just gains this momentum of negativity. All of a sudden, we justify our position and remove someone else's humanity, and we risk becoming the same as what we are arguing against.

So I agree with you, like I said - if someone is just wrong then they need to be taken to task by showing where they are factually wrong. Again, to me it comes down to right speech. If we are talking politics, we need to be extremely precise in our arguments. It's easier, and frankly lazy, to broad brush things instead of having to justify argument with fact, but it must be done.

It's easy to blame a people for something that we are anxious about, or to broad brush (I guess it's my favorite word today lol) a culture as something or having some characteristic, and that's the danger. Stereotypes take something that happens in small cases and applies them to a larger whole. I know this is obvious; but it's worse case myopia, and it's a trend we see in humanity that I think this practice brings to light and can help save us all - I really believe that.

There is a fear that people have - we all have it - when we are afraid for our lives/security,etc it all comes down to the fear of death anyway. We can all be Nazi's. That's so important to realize. We should never entertain any of those views, but we must realize what we can become so that in arguing against some injustice we do so in a way that prevents us from wiping out the other side. We just have to be careful when we are arguing against someone else, not to lose ourselves, to turn "them" into "evil" people. It's a fine line.

Gassho

Risho
-sattoday/lah

Gassho
Hoseki
Sat today/LAH



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk