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.”
