Q&A #9

War! What is it Good For?

You guys have so many questions, and they just keep coming in‚Ķ fantastic! I’m going to continue doing nothing but questions and answers for at least the rest of this week. I think after that, I’m going to just devote one day every week to reader questions. If you have a question, I’d love to see it. I’ll answer them all, either for the group or privately if you prefer. Email me at dailybuddhism@gmail.com (don’t reply to this message with questions, I don’t always see those right away).

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote this as a comment on the website, in response to last week’s posting on disappointment, which led to the topic of Darfur and the value of war:

—————————————————–

Let me play devil’s advocate with you. I am clearly Buddhist in nearly every way that I try to approach my life. However, let me pose this to you. When you say that war makes things worse (which I generally do agree with), do you not conceded that there are times when we have to roll the hard six and act? I would personally have had a difficult time standing on the sidelines of, say, the US Civil war or WWII in the respect to ending Nazi aggression.

When my friend asks about Darfur it is from a very reactionary mindset. However, I can’t help but think that there are times when an obligation to confront injustice (realizing this is a dangerously relative judgment to make) is a decision rule of sorts. If I shouldn’t let a man take a beating on the corner by some thug (you wouldn’t pass that by without trying to help‚Ķ or would you?), why is it wrong or even not more compassionate to take an active part to end absolute injustice where we run out of negotiation options?

I know that we can only accept the world for what it is. I know that we must work peacefully in order to not further entrench war and violence. However, what do you do when a man enters your home and directly threatens your family? I assume you defend it with your life. So, why is it no less justified to take the extreme cases of injustice in the world—and where not other good choices remain—to take on a similar paradigm in defense of those who cannot defend themselves against no less a clear threat?

This is just a hard place for me to find acceptance. How do you think the Buddha would answer my above comments and questions?

You can see all comments on this post here: http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/67#comments

—————————————————–

My Response

—————————————————–

You have just managed to open up a major can of worms with that question. I was always told that it was a bad idea to discuss religion or politics. I manage to break the first half of that rule every day, so I guess it’s time to talk politics just for a little bit.

Now, I have to state up front, that I am an American, and my international friends have told me that Americans have a unique conception of power and violence. Although I think that’s a wide overgeneralization, I’ll grant that there is some truth in the idea that we have all been raised to accept violence to a certain extent. When I was in Japan, one of the most frequent topics that came up in discussion is that Americans are allowed to own guns; they all thought that was just insane and immoral. They were shocked to learn that I have never owned one while my father is a collector. I suspect they believed that we all walk around with pistols strapped to our belts like in the old western movies. My point is that violence is more or less acceptable according to one’s own culture. I think the majority of Americans were in support of going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; whatever the long-term outcome or current opinion on the war, it seemed acceptable to the majority at the time. I’m not judging, just stating the fact.

I have to say Buddhism and politics don’t always mesh. Actually, they are a very difficult pairing indeed. Buddhists are extreme pacifists and politics often involve conflict. We’ve already talked about Tibet here; China basically just walked in and took over, the Tibetans didn’t offer much in the way of resistance.

But to get down to the meat of your question, would a serious Buddhist kill to stop an injustice?

No, I don’t think so.

In your example of the thug beating a helpless man on the street, a Buddhist would intervene- by separating the two, not with violence.

I think the best answer to this is to mention the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. They hurt no one but themselves, yet they also made a powerful political statement that did have a real effect.

Here’s the story:

http://www.quangduc.com/English/vnbuddhism/013quangduc.html

Here’s a VERY GRAPHIC photo (be warned):

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i265/rikkuayame/thichquangduc.jpg

No, I think non-violence is one of the most important and solemn ideas of Buddhism. In America, one of the strongest advocates for nonviolence was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Nobel Peace Price winner for 1964. Dr. King was not a Buddhist, but he understood Buddhism well. We have mentioned the monk Thich Nhat Hanh in the past. Thich Nhat Hanh was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1967… by Dr. King:

http://www.iamhome.org/mlkletter.htm

I’ll quote one line from the letter:

“Thich Nhat Hanh offers a way out of this nightmare, a solution acceptable to rational leaders. He has traveled the world, counseling statesmen, religious leaders, scholars and writers, and enlisting their support. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity.”

Q&A #8

Disappointment, Part 3

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

—————————————————–

I think that one can only really take responsibility for their own attachments. We care about our friends, and it would be counterintuitive to just tell you to forget about it because it is his/her attachments that are at the heart of his/her problem. Clearly, part of the issue is your feelings about their feelings. Assuming that you have thought through a decision and came to the best decision for you, your friend really has the obligation to accept you. Love is more present in letting go of it. What your friend feels is possessive. You can only do your best to be honest about your decisions. Then, you have to accept your friends natural response. You can’t fix your friend. Just be honest. And then let it be.

I once had a similar situation. Only, I basically left in the middle of the night in anticipation of not facing a hard goodbye. I just left my portion of the remaining lease payment on the table and drove away. This is something that I regret having done. It was not until months later that we honestly talked and came to terms. Your friend needs to accept you for who you are and what you do. There is suffering in life, and that includes tearful goodbyes. Embrace what you both feel and let it be. Although Taoist, Lau Tsu once said something like, “If you want to shirk something, you must first allow it to expand.” This, to me, means that the solution to any difficulty is first in letting it truly manifest. Only in its true magnitude can it be settled. Hiding, burying, running, or even capitulating to avoid this thing you seek to shrink can only entrench it if you ask me.

I don’t think it is at all a matter of things not bothering us. I’ve never thought a Buddhist approach to be aimed at nihilistic vacuums inside a ethereal existence. Buddhism, as I try to discover it, aims at ontology, ignores metaphysics if it can help it, and helps in ways unique to each person. Do you think the Dali Lama is not bothered by the recent riots in Tibet? Of course he is. I can only imagine how hard it is for him to remember to work peacefully for peace.

I don’t have answer one for you. I only encourage you to be honest and open to how you feel and seek some measure of communication. I don’t think this path is about burying you heart.

A coworker asked me something that I would like to push forward in this thread. How is a Buddhist supposed to feel about what is happening in Darfur? How does one find equanimity in that? I’ve been stumped on that one. I still don’t know how to reply.

Michael

—————————————————–

My Response:

—————————————————–

I agree absolutely on your response to the original poster and won’t add to it.

Ah, the situation in Darfur. Tibet. Myanmar too.

There is suffering everywhere, no matter who you are. You should do what you can to reduce suffering, within your power and within the limits of your ability to do so. But what about a situation like Myanmar, where people are clamoring to send aid, but the government of Myanmar turns it away? Is there no way to help?

Talking about the problem won’t help a bit, and going to war only makes it worse. If talking or force won’t fix the problem, what will? It will be resolved in time, but many people don’t HAVE time.

Sorry, I don’t have an answer. I don’t know that anyone does.

Q&A #7

This is not exactly a question, but more an excellent recommendation by a reader:

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

———————————————

…The thought that I wanted to share with the rest of you is this: As a member of Netflix, it dawned on me to check and see what would come up for the searches; Buddha, Buddhist and Buddhism. The results were satisfyingly surprising. I only half-expected any results to be truly on-topic.

What I got back in the list of available discs was filled with documentaries, historical pieces, educational topics and even discs meant to supplement meditation. Don’t get me wrong, the list isn’t a who’s who of Buddhism, by any means. But, it had several titles that I found immediately worthwhile to add to my queue. The first of those queued titles arrived today.

Since first becoming interested in Buddhism, not too long ago, I immersed myself in what is my natural place to turn first. The internet. I read many many pages on Wikipedia, and then branched out in a multitude of direction, finding literally scores of fantastic websites, that now stuff my ‘Buddhism’ bookmark folder.

One of the places my searches took me was to the Bamyan Valley (spelling may differ). The giant Buddha statues there fascinated me. As one of the hobbies I eagerly pursue is the study of ancient astro-centric civilizations, this had a great feel of similar archeology about it. I read the article with zeal, until I got to the third paragraph, when my mouth hung open and my stomach pained me.

These massive works of faith, created some 1500 years ago, were dynamited by the leaders of the Taliban, after being proclaimed idols offensive to their religion. My heart sank.

The upside to my conveyance here is that one of the discs I found on Netflix, titled “The Giant Buddhas,” is a documentary telling their story and how the tragic events leading to their destruction unfolded.

I wanted to share this with anyone interested, and just express my satisfaction with the film.

—————————————————–

My Response

—————————————————–

Wow‚Ķ ‚ÄúBuddhist movies‚Äù is a topic I hadn’t even thought of before. That’s a great suggestion. A couple that I remember seeing, not documentaries, but regular ‚Äúfor entertainment‚Äù movies are ‚ÄúSiddhartha‚Äù and ‚ÄúLittle Buddha.‚Äù Neither are what I’d call great, but they have their moments. I’m sure there are plenty of documentaries available on Netflix.

If anyone has any movies they would specifically recommend, post it on the website, I’d love to hear about more movies!

Buddhist Symbology Part 4

Golden Fish

Who wants to drown in the river of suffering? Who can avoid this fate? Fish of course! Just as fish swim where they wish and migrate as they will, an enlightened being can choose his own migration (rebirth). The fish can also represent fertility and abundance.

The golden fishes are another holdover from Hinduism, and are usually represented as a pair, historically symbolizing the Yamuna and Ganga rivers of India.

Buddhist Symbology Part 3

The Parasol

A parasol is not an umbrella. An umbrella protects from the rain, while a parasol protects from the sun. The parasol also symbolically protects against “the heat of defilements.” Another way to look at it is that the parasol represents the sky and the handle represents a mountain that holds up the sky, or possibly the axis that holds up the whole world. The proximity of the person under the parasol to the “axis of the world” represents the importance of the person.

Still another way of looking at it is that the dome of the parasol represents wisdom, and the hanging part symbolized compassion. The parasol as a whole represents the fusion of both.

Guess who is usually shown sitting under a parasol? Two points if you guessed “The Buddha.” However, other important figures, such as the Dalai Lama and others are entitled to parasols as well.

Buddhist Symbology Part 2

The conch shell is another well-know symbol in Buddhism. This is another of the big Hindu symbols that has passed over to Buddhism. The great hero Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita carried a conch, as did most Hindu gods and heros.

A conch used as a “horn” is often used to call together assemblies of Buddhists, especially in Tibet, but other paces as well other places. As the sound of the horn goes forth, so does the fame and truthful teachings of the Buddha.

Mara The Tempter

We’ve briefly mentioned Mara a few times already. Last week (http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/83), we talked about four Maras that Buddha had to overcome. Those maras were symbolic representations of hindrances on his path to Nirvana. However, quite often Mara is portrayed as a physical manifestation of temptation.Much like Yama is sometimes considered the god of death, Mara is something like the god of temptation.

While Siddhartha Gotama (Buddha before his Enlightenment) sat beneath the Bodhi tree, Mara came to him with many temptations. He tried repeatedly to tempt Buddha to return to his wife and son, becoming a great king in the process. Failing in this, Mara hurled lightning bolts at him, but the lightning turned into harmless flowers before the got near Buddha. The thunderbolts turned into soft music.

Even today, Mara is said to tempt men’s souls, and is the lord of pleasures of the senses, and delights in confusing and misleading.

Announcements

The End of the Beginning?

As I do a quick mental inventory, I’m thinking we’ve covered most of what I would consider ‚Äúessential basic Buddhism.‚Äù It may be just about time to start covering more ‚Äúintermediate‚Äù topics. Before we start that, I want to make sure we’ve covered all the basics. So today, I’m going to put out another call for questions.

Have I missed a subject that interests you?
Is any topic that I’ve covered unclear or maybe too shallow?
Questions on anything?
Do you have any inspiring stories or personal thoughts you’d like to share?

Coming Soon…

I’m hoping to get enough reader questions and calls for topic elaboration to cover the rest of July, and then start the ‚ÄúDaily Buddhism: Book Two‚Äù in August. When we do start more advanced topics, what would you like to see?

Every Monk Has His Bowl

And once again, I need to mention that on the http://www.dailybuddhism.com website, there is a button labeled “Donate.” Buddhists around the world have survived for 2500 years on donations and gifts from others. Who am I to try to break that tradition? If you have enjoyed the emails and podcasts so far, please “drop something in the box.”

And have a great weekend!

Gudo Revisited

This is in reference to last week’s story about Mu-Nan and Gudo from ‚ÄúA Diamond In The Road‚Äù which can be found at http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/87

—————————————————–

A Reader recently wrote:

—————————————————–

Did Mu-nan leaving his family to become Gudo’s successor not also cause suffering to his wife and children?

Was the loss of his income from his absence any different to them than the loss of his income from gambling and drinking?

—————————————————–

And my response:

—————————————————–

These little stories always need a little analysis and thought, and I’m glad you’re thinking about them. They’re more than just history or entertainment.

Keep in mind that these are ancient orally-transmitted stories and there’s no way to validate the historical accuracy of any of this, so speculation and literary analysis are all that we have. Fortunately, that’s enough in most cases.

Mu-Nan left his wife and children to follow the Way of the Buddha. Remember, Buddha himself abandoned his wife and child in the middle of the night. There’s a definite parallel there between the two. Buddha was a wealthy prince, and he left his family in the care of his rich father the king, so they really didn’t suffer much. Using that information as a model to look at Mu-Nan’s story, we can see that Mu-Nan’s wife was the one selling the sandals, not Mu-nan himself. Essentially, it was her business to sell shoes; she was the bread-winner of the family. Mu-Nan the gambling drunkard probably got all his money from her, so his presence was probably more of a drain than his absence.