Zen, War, Violence and Peace

[Komoku]

Semper Fi! (I like being able to say that now because I raised a Marine.) If you want to know about war ask a soldier not a war protester (sorry war protesters, nothing personal).

[Lynn]

Some thoughts on war by Major General Smedley Butler U.S.M.C.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Gassho, and Semper Fi

Jordan

All I have to say on this is...WOW!! I would love to meet this guy and shake his hand! What fabulous ideas, especially the one in which those in govt. who started and support the war pay half their salaries to the families of the soldiers who are fighting it in compensation for the effort!! WOOT!

And if ever I have another boy child I'm going to name him Smedley Darlington Butler (regardless of whatever the last name is of the father!) That's one smack name!

Here's a little something I saw yesterday to delight y'all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE[/video]]

[Fuken]

Some thoughts on war by Major General Smedley Butler U.S.M.C.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Gassho, and Semper Fi

Jordan

[Ankai]

War

It was my experience in war that turned me toward Buddhism. Nevertheless, I struggle. While I certainly can strive to never hurt a sentient being, I also have to say I believe there are some things worth fighting for.
(I will say that lies, power, imperialism and money are NOT among those things, and that's about as political as I'll ever get.)
I'd love to say I'll never raise a hand or weapon against another again. But I don't know. Things happen. What I can say is that it is my hope and prayer that if I do raise my hand, it will be in protection, not in anger. And I will never, ever pick up a firearm again.
LOL Sorry, I have no answers, just more questions. but when it comes to war, I guess the bottom line is that when contemplating man's inhumanity to man, the only real answers ARE the questions.

[Mika]

There is never a situation where we know for sure that we will save lots of people by killing few.

I was just going to comment on the same thing. When you pull the trigger, you pull the trigger. But until that moment all paths are open to you. And the same is equally true for the "bad guy with the gun".

[helena]

This is a topic that I am struggling with as well, as I guess we all are. Thanks Hans for starting the topic, and Lynn for bringing it to our attention again.

I find that more and more, I really realize that I just don't know. I really, really don't. It is hard enough to understand the consequences of the small things I do on a daily basis, let alone to understand the consequences of enourmous things like war.

I disagree with the argument that sometimes you kill one person to save one million. Of course it is a no brainer in principle, but I don't think it is a useful argument in reality, because reality is never as clear. There is never a situation where we know for sure that we will save lots of people by killing few. Usually, like Mr Walker says, violence begets violence and more and more people keep getting killed. I also don't think that failing to safe someone is equal to taking direct action to kill someone. Yet, I also don't want to say that violence is never ever warranted. I just feel that that is such an easy position for me to take, from my safe home in my safe country.

So, I don't know.

[Jundo]

Wow... sorry if I'm out of line here...

Not at all! Gassho, J

[will]

Instead, I believe that, one way or the other, we sometimes may have to take life to save life or to do mercy ...

How about we choose which road when we come to it.

Gassho

[Mr Walker]

A few things:

Whatever we do, our actions have consequences. In cases like the ones described, where taking one life saves 100,000 others, consequences will obviously be vastly different depending on the choice made. The one taking that life, if that's the choice made, will suffer from that but also benefit from the fact that he/she saved 100,000 persons. There's no way of getting away from that.
From a karmic standpoint, intentionally killing one person to save 100,000 others is vastly different from killing one person for personal reasons.

However, very much related to this is that violence begets violence. The problems of Iraq and the Middle East will escalate, the hatred against Westerners will escalate. It could be that killing one or a few persons will stop the war, but will the hatred stop? No. Will it stop terrorism? No. The only violent way to stop terrorism is to wipe out all actual and potential terrorists and that's neither possible nor something you would want to do, it would have other terrible consequences.

So, the only way to go forward is to completely re-assess the situation, to evaluate and try to understand why there is hatred. To me, there are three fundamental issues, one is poverty (or, perhaps more important, distribution of wealth), the second is education and the third is religion. I'm not saying that there will be no hatred and wars if these issues are solved, but the whole situation would become different.

Now, whether that can be done or not is a different matter, but if we do not strive to do that, the future will be bleak.


Wow... sorry if I'm out of line here...

[Jundo]

Hi Paige,

I don't agree with the idea that we can kill (or lie, or steal...) without breaking precepts.

Well, I did not really mean to imply that, and I hesitate to put words on this. If we kill one to save ten, I think we --are-- breaking the Precept. If we do not kill the one to save the ten, I think we --are-- breaking the Precept too. Either road, and we must break the Precept.

Or maybe we should say that we must break the Precept to keep the Precept?

Or maybe the Precept, an arrow pointing us in the direction which minimizes harm and maximizes peace, the helpful and healthful ... just is an arrow's pointing and --cannot- be broken. Or, maybe it is a flexible band that stretches to include whatever minimizes harm the most .... I do not care to define it that closely (as the former lawyer I am).

Instead, I believe that, one way or the other, we sometimes may have to take life to save life or to do mercy ... and though we do the "right" thing, we should also carry the weigh of our actions. Even if we take a life through necessity, that life must be carried with us and we must atone. I do not know if that 'Karmic" burden must be carried into future lives, but I do know that we must carry it with us in this life.

Gassho, Jundo

[paige]

Thank you for clarifying your question Lynn.

Much as I hate to disagree with our resident super-enlightened being (aka Jundo :P), I don't agree with the idea that we can kill (or lie, or steal...) without breaking precepts. I think that there's a difference between trying to do one's best and be 'a good person,' and actually vowing to uphold the precepts. Most Buddhists don't take the precepts, or even go for refuge.

But holding the precepts doesn't always allow someone to live harmlessly either - for instance, what about euthanising a sick pet? Maybe stringently keeping the precept in that case is more harmful than breaking it.

Bah, I'm not even making any sense am I?

[Jundo]

Hi Lynn and everyone,

Sorry that I was away yesterday and did not see your question, Lynn. But I am not sure that I can answer it any better than many of the other people here already have ... or, better said, nobody can answer. That it is why it is a type of Koan.

My simple perspective is the case where the taking of one life (even an innocent life) may be necessary to save 10, 100 or 100,000 lives (A true situation I recently heard about involves some of the US soldiers who must accept a certain number of 'civilian collateral' in order to kill a 'high profile target'). Some people insist that there is always ONE right course of action for any situation, but I disagree. Many actions have both harmful and beneficial effects. All we can do, sometimes, is stick our finger in the wind and make the choice we believe the best at any moment.

If you fail to kill directly the one, you may be killing indirectly 100,000.

I believe that the following is in keeping with views that I have heard the Dalai Lama express in the past. He is a very wise human being wrestling with these same dilemnas:

Dalai Lama reserves judgment on whether Iraq war was justified


By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press

(Published: September 10, 2003)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Dalai Lama said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted.

"I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, just after he met with President Bush.

"In principle, I always believe nonviolence is the right thing, and nonviolent method is in the long run more effective," said the Dalai Lama, who after the Sept. 11 attacks had implored Bush to avoid a violent response by the United States.

The exile Tibetan leader, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, said the Vietnam War increased suffering and was a "failure." But, he said, some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy."

He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan - "perhaps some kind of liberation."

"The people themselves, I think, suffer a lot under their previous regimes," he said. But he was adamant that the United States not lose sight of rebuilding Afghanistan.

The Dalai Lama urged Bush, in a letter on Sept. 12, 2001, to "think seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run."

Asked whether the Iraq war was just, the Dalai Lama said the situation there is "more complicated" and will take more time before he can judge.

http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/99 ... 5161c.html

There are consequences from our words, acts and thoughts. Some may be surprising. An act of violence can often have unexpected good results along with the bad (I see this in Japan, where much good came out of a prior war). But, overall, harmful acts can be expected to increase the quotient of harm in this world. We should avoid them.

And, I think, if we are ever in the situation where we must take a life to save 100 ... then we should feel that weight within us, and carry that person with us always throughout life ... even as we probably "did what was necessary" (I have a friend, a policeman, who was placed in this situation. He acted in a way that was right and proper by all standards, yet he carries it with him).

I am sorry, Lynn ... as you know already, there are not always 'easy answers', and the universe does not show us one clear and pure path sometimes.

I oppose all wars ... I am no supporter of the current war in Iraq (although I honor and respect the soldiers who must serve there). Some war may be necessary.

Gassho, and thank you and your son for your service ... Jundo

[Eika]

Hi, Lynn.
I appreciate the earnestness (is that a word? ) of your posts.

I guess it speaks to personal responsibility and the difference between sort of kind of acknowledging the precepts when convenient, and simply taking responsibility for breaking them when we do without trying to figure an angle about how we can get ourselves off the hook for it.

My take here (a very unenlightened one probably) is that we will sometimes break the precepts knowingly when a conflict of competing values arises. In my mind, good intent does not absolve the breaking of the precept, but how many days go by in which we don't break a precept? Compassionate intent is valuable and good, but doesn't change the fact that we did, indeed, break the precept. However, no one is keeping score on the precepts. Actions happen and have consequences; how our intent affects these consequences, I have no clue, but I think it is still important to have the spirit of a bodhisattva. When confronted with multiple evils, we often have to choose and we have to take responsibility for our choices, but no one kicks us out of the enlightenment club for violating a precept--we simply forge on, sitting and working on ourselves as best we can. Another part of me (the agnostic part) says that struggling with the question is MUCH more important than the answer. I thought this was what Jundo's War Koan talk was suggesting using different language, but I may be wrong (I'm fully aware that we often hear what we want to hear instead of what is being said). I'll go back and watch the teaching . . .

Also, I think we might make a distinction between effects of our actions and the precepts that guide those actions. Actions that follow the precepts are thought to be helpful, but what happens in the rare instances where the precepts themselves appear to be in conflict. I'm thinking of the precept "Doing all good acts" vs. "refraining from killing." These could be seen as being in conflict in an extreme circumstance such as war. I might suggest that "Doing all good acts" trumps the ten precepts in this case. But, I honestly can't say how I would view it if I really had to make the hard choices.

I feel a bit silly responding because I have led such a sheltered life and here I am talking about war and death on a forum with military folks and mothers of military folks. Nonetheless, that is my perspective—which like all things is in a state of constant change.

Gassho,
Bill

[Lynn]

Hi Paige,

Thank you for your kindness.

Actually, my questions regarding the breaking of precepts and the mitigation of karmic consequences was outside the scope of the personal with regard to my son, and more for me. It was actually more directed toward Jundo's sentence about the possibility that one could kill and not be breaking the precept of killing at all.

This is a piece of the dharma that I have questioned for some time. I guess it speaks to personal responsibility and the difference between sort of kind of acknowledging the precepts when convenient, and simply taking responsibility for breaking them when we do without trying to figure an angle about how we can get ourselves off the hook for it. *And...there are those shades of grey in between where action is required that may be a breaking of the precepts. That's where the compassion comes in. And, in this case, is there actually a point where we can say that an action that seems to break a precept doesn't? (Sort of a "spirit of the precept" and "letter of the precept" type thing.)

I was hoping that anyone with more experience and understanding of the precepts, intention and karmic consequence would be willing to have a discussion around this. It's been a-rattling around in my blood and bones for some time.

In Gassho~

*Lynn

[paige]

Dear Lynn,

I think that your previous post already spoke quite eloquently on (some of) the consequences of taking a human life. You said that your son was feeling a great deal of remorse, having trouble sleeping &c.

It sounds like a very difficult situation already, and I don't know if there's anything to be gained in speculating on further karmic repercussions.

I hope your son's current tour is very uneventful! And that he returns home soon, safe and well in body and mind.

-paige