Buddhism and war

Well, that question is based entirely around whether or not Buddhists have the same interpretation of war. I doubt they do. It's a little vague of a topic, but they might regard it like Christians regard being born with sin. Perhaps it simply can't be helped?

Interesting. But, Buddhists wouldn't be responsible for war. Based on their beliefs, they might feel responsible since they believe we're all connected. No one on the outside should blame them though unless you are willing to accept thier beliefs as your own. And then, you couldn't blame Buddhists still since they desire peace as we all pretty much do. If we are all connected, it is the dark side of ourselves needing reproach, not the positive message of Buddhists seeking enlightenment.

So what if a Buddhist is directly connected to a war?

Buddhism is still peaceful - no wars will be connected to Buddhism. The reason for the Buddhist to be connected to the war is not Buddhism. Instead Buddhism lessens any connections to war, look at Dalai Lama for example.

XyB3,

I did not post this topic to blame anyone. And I'm not saying that there is any war directly connected to Buddhism. I just wondered if Buddhists feel any responsibility for war, if Buddhists believe that everything is connected. Plus, if you are a Buddhist, then don't you believe that your soul or life force or whatever you call it goes on and that it has been here before in different forms? If so, then I could see how a Buddhist might feel like they are connected and in an indirect way, partially responsible for war.

Just wondering about the belief.

Given the ancient popularity of both Buddhism and warfare among the Japanese, i don't think i can buy a global statement about a Buddhist disconnect from war.

Good point setanta.

Another thing. Tibetan monks, I thought, were also into a sense of worldy balance. So that if they embodied peace and light they'd be connected to war as a balast.

I have been a practicing Buddhist for over 22 years. On the whole, Buddhists are opposed to war. There is nothing more cuel or more barbarous. Buddhism believes in the absolute dignity of human life. Though it may be difficult, a diplomatic solution is always best. However, there may be times when our lives are threatened and we have to defend ourselves. In such cases war is inevitable. I see no wars in the world today that fit this criteria.

If its not a choice for a Buddhist to not be connected to a war, then I guess, if he has the compasssion and peace loving mind, he will be like Dalai Lama, praying for world peace, doing anything he can to convince sentient beings the importance of peace.

Buddhist teaching does not condone killing of any sort.

However, Buddhists sometimes do kill. Sometimes even a highly regarded master, or monk may commit homicide, or suicide. Killing by devout Buddhist laymen, especially in war is not terribly uncommon. Yet, it is undoubtedly true that we Buddhists tend to emphasize the non-violent, and predominant, strains of our religion. I know that must seem shocking and even antithetical to many. How can two seemingly opposing concepts coexist? How can we reconcile the apparent contradiction?

First, a core Buddhist concept is that our perceptual reality is illusory. Ultimate Reality is indivisible, complete and Universal; outside time and space. The mundane world of multiplicity is made up of "false" notions of "this and that", "good and bad", etc. There can be no good without evil, no "now" without "then". That which happens in the world of multiplicity is ultimately of no more importance than the previous night's nightmare. Does this mean that we should go about the "Floating World" doing whatever we please? Should we wantonly harm or cause pain to another without hesitation just because they, and we, are insubstantial?

Suffering is the central consequence of the Illusory World of multiplicity. We suffer from being torn from a warm and comfy womb and being thrust into a cold world where boundaries are everywhere. We fear what may happen to us from the Other, and sometimes the Other does hurt us and cause pain. We want what we cannot have, and suffer when what we do "have" is lost. We become injured, or ill. Time in its passing is marked by our growing old, enfeebled and finally by death. We all want to be free from suffering, to regain the unity, completeness that we last experienced in the womb. Buddhism is the prescription for that terrible disease of "existence".

When we think, speak, or act in ways that increase suffering the Illusory World becomes generally stronger. Grasp and pursue your own desires, and you will suffer more than if you cultivate detachment. Inflict pain on other creatures, and your own attachments to the world of suffering will only increase causing more suffering. For Buddhists, the greatest merit comes from mitigating the amount of suffering that permeates this Floating World. Our greatest "sin" is to contribute to the causes of suffering, or to think/speak/act in ways that increase suffering. This raises several thorny problems.

All thought/speech/action inevitably contributes in some degree to the continuation of the Illusory World (Maya, in Sanscrit). We can only escape suffering by "stepping off of the Wheel" by becoming as fully Awake as possible. Theravada doctrine is that each must awaken themselves, but Mahayana sects allow for the gradual awakening and the transference of merit from the Blessed to those not yet ready. Both aim for release from suffering, the extinguishing of duality. Most Buddhists belong to the Mahayana/Tantric tradition, so the thought/speech/action of one is an important element in the effect of the Illusory World has on the overall reduction of suffering. We choose one course of action over another, an act in itself of duality. The degree to which suffering is either mitigated or increased provides a standard for choosing what thought/speech/action is "good", and which is "bad".

But, how can we know the effects of our thoughts, our words, or our actions on those around us? We have imperfect knowledge of what others think and feel. We do not know with any great certainty what will cause pain, and what will mitigate it. Buddhism gives us some guidelines, but ultimately a well-intentioned thought/word/action will have an unintended effect. We punish a child for playing in dangerous ways, and the child will certainly suffer from the punishment. Is the parent's punishment meritorious, or not? By causing a little suffering by a harsh word, or even a little physical pain we may prevent greater suffering later. An undisciplined child, never subjected to suffering, can develop no understanding or appreciation of how their thoughts/words/action will affect others. On the other hand, too harsh a discipline may create a monster. We all do the best we can, and to the best of our understanding.

The layman, monk, or Master who decides to kill, has convinced themselves that their action is necessary to prevent a larger and more terrible suffering. They should also appreciate the possibility that they are wrong, and that their well-intentioned act will increase suffering more than it mitigates it. Assassination of a tyrant may bring to power one who is even worse. Burning oneself to death in a public place may, or may not, bring down a government. For every killing there is a consequence, and the most probable consequences are to increase suffering rather than to mitigate it. Perhaps a regime should be brought down, or perhaps its evil exists mostly in the mind of the activist. In any case, suffering will result as it always does from thought/word and deed.

In Buddhism, as in all other religions, there are at least three sorts of religious experience. The direct mystical experience that transcends mundane reality lies at the heart of most religions. The founder of the religion and those who later also experience the transcendent, ARE thereafter non-violent and compassionate whatever their core religious roots.

The second sort of religion is that of the disciples and codifiers of the formal religion. These folks are dedicated to propagating the religious message preached by the founder and those whom they believe have shared the founder's transcendent experience. These folks are the foundation of religious movements, even when they themselves never directly experience the transcendent. They make up the rules and write the gospels as they think the founder intended. Church leaders often are extremely competitive and sensitive to the rectitude of their own beliefs. They are often wrong, and use their power of setting doctrine and dogma to advance their own interests and beliefs. Buddhism, with it's emphasis on individual enlightenment and history of being led by individuals who are generally believed to have directly experienced enlightenment themselves, is relatively close to what I believe the founder intended over two thousand years ago. Clerics, of whatever stripe, are notorious for pursuing their own egoistic impulses. Buddhist priests should be less apt to fall into that sort of error because our religion tends to strongly reign in the ego, but not always.

Most followers of every religion are laymen and are only nominally religious. The larger congregations frequently mix ancient cultural traditions with their religion. Superstition, and religious doctrines that are compatible with their personal "needs" are those most likely to be accepted. It takes very little to awaken their natural killer-instincts. Buddhists of all sects and of all nationalities are just as patriotic as their Abrahamic counterparts. In spite of what some might believe, the great majority of Buddhists regard their religion as a cultural/social network (often inherited with little thought from their parents) just like many Christians. While Buddhist leaders tend to be pacifistic, that isn't always true. Buddhist leaders sent many Japanese boys's off to fight in Manchuria, Korea and China. Some of those soldiers committed war crimes, just like their German counterparts. Historically, it is a rarity to find Buddhist leaders advocating the use of violent force, but there are a few examples. On the other hand, Abrahamic religions are rooted in war, and are really very open to the notion that "good" is in mortal combat with "evil". The difference is, fundamental Buddhist doctrine condemns war and violence, though some rational for violence can be "discovered" if the individual works at it.

Human beings are naturally inclined to want what they cannot have and to use aggression to obtain what cannot be had by other means. We envy and fear our neighbors, so we tend to satisfy our emotions by attacking them. Whatever it is we believe, we believe is TRUTH, otherwise we wouldn't believe it at all. If the Other believes something different, they must be wrong and we, out of compassion, should sort them out. It is so easy to find excuses to resort to force and violence to achieve what we are convinced are "higher and better" ends. Buddhism, unlike the principle trends inside the Abrahamic tradition, works very hard to discourage the sort of thought/speech/action that leads to violent confrontation. Even so, who can condemn the individual or group that acts militarily to defend themselves from a foe determined upon their subjugation and destruction? However, even in those extreme situations one has difficulty in finding many examples of Buddhist involvement in war.

Buddha himself also did totally disapprove his followers of joining the army. His views are that we can defend our nation, but not attack other nations in an offensive way (e.g Hitler, Saddam Hussein), so Buddhists dont have extreme views about Peace like that of the Jeehovah Witnesses. In my country in particular, all the male Jeehovah Witnesses (illegal here) who lives in my country will serve 2 years in jail, when all other men are having their compulsory military training. I have never heard of a Buddhist trying to avoid and deny National Service.

In fact, there is very few things that Buddhism is extreme about, we believe in Karma and not eternal damnation. Buddhists do make mistakes, but they will try their best to avoid them.

War is not simply about right and wrong, there are many things to look into. I believe most Buddhists will fight for my country if it is one day attacked.

I find it hilarious to hear a description of what Buddha approved or disapproved of . . .

The tales of the martial feats of Siddhartha in dealing with demons of various description are fairy tales straight out of a child's book. Anyone who swallows that crap whole is cordially invited to peruse my real estate prospectus for "lake front" property in Florida. Modern Buddhism has about as much to do with these fairy stories as modern Christianity does with what a rabbi named Yeshua may or may not have said in his lifetime, if the joker ever actually existed.

What i see in this thread is partisans of Buddhism making every attempt to justify the actions of Buddhists, and to put that set of beliefs in a favorable light. That is understandable, if unrealistic. Whether, in the old expression of my ancestors songs, Christian, Pagan or Jew (and here we can add Buddhist), the attitude of any of the faithful toward war is conditioned by their personal prejudices, modified by the group opinion of the community to which they adhere.

Simply put, any contention of a universal attitude toward war on the part of all Buddhists is hogwash.

Not necessary justifying. Not all violence created by Buddhists and in fact any other religions are justified and correct. I am pointing out however that violence in Buddhism's name has never been commited before.

I read somewhere that there never were any buddist wars of any sort. And that one could state that this is the only religion that claim this about themselves. True or false?

I doubt any buddhist cult will ever think about starting a war. Although there were exceptions of certain buddhists killing another human being or themselves.

Couldn't be more Wrong
I thought and deeply considered every response. Christianity was pulled into the score as it always will. Budhists are not in the wrong even when they go to war. I know what they say, but there are times when what you say gets challenged. As in Christianity, why does Christianity have to be brought into every religious conversation. As if we are the biggest hypocrites of the world, people twist our stories around and think what they want.

I am Christian. War is inevitable. Get over it. You want to pull your pants down and take it right up the patootie because you dont' want to fight, that's on you. Take it where you deserve it. I am a United States Marine and I am a Christian. Oh my God, does that go together with an alcoholic, a killer and a father. Oh ****, what have I said. Don't judge me until you know the whole story. I'm not afraid of death, nor am I afraid of escorting someone else to there's. Now judge me, people who want to get my goat with words, but would be timid about doing anything to me face to face. Go ahead and drive yourself nuts with your justifications, someone has to die sometime. Quit hiding behind the strong, willing to fight while you justify your own passive moments in this charade.

Quit judging. Quit acting like you are so intelligent you can talk the rest of us around in circles. Quit being so full of yourself that I have to puke every time you type. Without me, you would have been run over a long time ago and I'm tired of hearing how much you hate people like me. Go get a grip.

It's like the meat eating person who can't stand the fact that someone else has to make the kill. Get over it and eat what I give you, because if you aren't man enough, don't put me down.

Re: Couldn't be more Wrong

I suspect that you are afraid of death, hence the draw to Christianity. The promise of eternal life is Christianity's greatest attraction. Oh and that remark about taking it up the patootie, kind of shines a different light on "turn the other cheek".

Semper Fi. I am a Buddhist and hate war more than almost anyone I know. I know it and hate it more for the knowing. It isn't inevitable, but trying to avoid it by denial is the most certain means of insuring war. Only by maintaining a credible and superior military force is there any hope for peace so long as people are driven by human desires and fears. Bin Ladin and Saddam came to believe that the United States has become too soft and fearful of war to ever effectively attack them head-on. The DPRK, and others, hopefully now will be less bold in their provocations. I'm sure you will do your duty. Huha!

Though many might like to assert that Buddhism is entirely free from involvement in wars, that just isn't true. What is true, is that there have been no significant religious wars fought on behalf of Buddhism. Buddhist monastic orders have been known to carry on violent conflicts over both turf, and doctrine. Buddhism peaked out in India with Asoka, who unified India with a bloody sword before becoming a Buddhist.

Buddhists have served with honor in many armies, and fought in many conflicts as citizens of their respective nations. Some of the finest warriors in history were Buddhist Samurai. Some Japanese Buddhist leaders actively promoted Buddhist lay support in and for Japanese militarism from the Meiji Period through the end of WWII. The famous Go For Broke unit had many soldiers who were Buddhist. Buddhist monks immolated themselves for political purposes in vietnam.

Though there are elements within Buddhist doctrine that can accentuate the ardor with which Buddhist soldiers fight, the primary thrust of our religion is indeed non-violent and respectful of life. The primary purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering wherever it exists. War is suffering personified, and an anathema to Buddhist thought. To intentional induce suffering has serious consequences, and Buddhists who lend themselves to violence must do it with full recognition of what they are doing. Sometimes, violence is necessary and the resulting suffering is accepted as a mitigation against a larger, more terrible suffering that might result from shrinking from violence.

At what point was saddam a threat to the US? And bush could have stopped (or at least, stopped helping) bin laden.

Hey you, the marine guy(you like it when people talk like this don't you?), what's all this about people not being allowed to type at a certain level which doesn't include slang or is pacifistic one way or the other?
I think war could have been avoided in the examples mentioned, nevertheless, Japan for example tries (and has tried to for many years) to be a strong (in every way) land. And with good reason, I agree.
BUT, you're a marine. You say you risk your life for people like us who don't take the action themselves. Who don't have the testicular fortitude
But when have you ever thought to yourself in combat: 'This man, this man right here; if I don't kill him, he will kill me, my wife, my friends, the people I love or anybody I've ever seen (that isn't in the army).'?
Yes, we must be strong. Yes, we must be assertive at times. Yes, a good offensive can be the best defence. But at no point do I find america's actions just.

To get back to the topic, they fight(like most western countries have in the last, oh, 2000years if they could have) in the name of god. Yes, yes, the christian one. The bible is filled with violence and contradictions which allow us to justify every action, right or wrong. (except the NT, which is mostly chit-chat about love everyone)

I'm just pointing out some things, I'm not going into extreme depths just yet. Unless you challenge me, which I'm sure you will.

Now, it's time for a little story :-)


This story needs no comment imo, it's just a nice story
But I'm going to ask you one thing nevertheless out of curiousity:
Which one has the most courage? Which one is the noblest?
(My answer does not correspend with anything alongst the lines of: The guy with an M-16 who had no business being there)

The status quo anti in Southwestern Asia was, and is a threat not only to the United States, but to Western Civilization as a whole. The region has been unstable for many years, and those regional conflicts threaten the rest of the world. Arab intransigence in re. Israel's right to exist was the kindergarden of terrorism. Despotic governments have existed in almost every one of the nations that make up the region. Poverty, the lack of opportunity and human rights has been almost without exception. Increasingly over the last twenty years these nations have incorporated radical and militant Islam into their governmental structures.

Saddam headed one of the most destabilizing governments in the region. He attacked his Islamic neighbors, and attempted to steal the country that had lent him the resources needed to carryon his war with Iran. He used terror weapons that have been banned by international treaty and law against civilians both within Iraq and in Iran. Defeated in the Gulf War, he "put out a contract" on the President of the United States. The war left him in power (our grievous mistake), but with his promise to disarm and abide by certain obligations. He lied repeatedly, obstructed weapons inspections, engaged in systemic repression and torture of opponents, and did everything in his power to convince the world that he still maintained a giant arsenal of terror weapons. He broke the conditions of the armistice, and as a result the West was obligated to resume combat operations. Unfortunately, the French, Germans and Russians (all of whom had reason to keep saddam in power) played to popular fears that resumption of the Gulf War would be a blood-bath, an ecological disaster that would push the world into chaos. It was like a rerun of Europes reluctance to pick up the German challenges to peace during the late 1930s. Bush could have done the popular thing, the easy thing and ignored Saddam a little longer. The result would have been more terrorist actions against Israel sponsored and paid for by Iraq. So long as Saddam escaped any consequences for his outlaw government, he fostered the belief that the West, the U.S. in particular, were a paper tiger unwilling to directly confront any enemy if there might be a blood price. After 9/11 every terrorist organization, and every nation that sponsored and supported terrorism watched to see what our response would be. They needed a clear answer and example of the consequences of attacking the United States, and its allies. They got that example, and as a consequence there are fewer national governments today that openly support terrorist organizations than there were previously.

By bringing down Saddam, the door was opened to try building a more humane and just Islamic government in a troubled region. We are trying, and still hope to succeed. Many terrorist organizations and radical Islamic organizations don't want there to be a stable, open government in Iraq because that would not be in their interests. Al Queda, and a host of other organizations, will do almost anything to defeat our efforts to rebuild Iraq along liberal lines. They will kill Iraqi citizens and children and try to put the blame on the U.S. They foster distrust of our intentions with lies and half-truths that many folks in the region are only too willing to accept at face value. The propaganda spewed forth by the radicals and terrorists plays to anti-American sentiment in the streets of Paris, Berlin and Moscow. Some Americans seem to prefer trusting the statements of our declared enemies rather than the elected and appointed leaders of our own country.

The United States covertly supported resistance to Soviet occupied Afghanistan by supplying munitions, intelligence, and technical advice. Bin Ladin was one of many resistance leaders who got our support during that time. Shortly after the Soviets withdrew, the support from the U.S. dried up. Afghanistan returned to the Warlord chaos that has typified the country almost since the time of Alexander. Bin Ladin left the country and began building his networks elsewhere. During the Gulf War, Bin Ladin became overtly anti-American and vowed to expel U.S. forces from the region, especially Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, Bin Ladin was no longer getting any help from the U.S. It is even more misleading to assert that Bush was somehow responsible for all that happened during the Democratic Clinton administration. If Bin Ladin got any help (which he didn't) it would have come from Clinton, not Bush.

Wars fought for religious purposes are largely the province of the Abrahamic Religions. Taoists, Confucians, Shintos, and Buddhists can be fierce warriors, but their wars are virtually never about religion. Christians and moslems make a virtue of fighting wars to expand the reach of their religion. A pox on both their houses. Much of the instability in Southwest Asia is directly related to the religious convictions of Jews, moslems, and Christians. Militant Hinduism may largely be traced to Indian resistance to Islamic insistence that they alone have the True Religion.

Re: Buddhism and war


Was is an acquired habit of humankind. It has been the natural state of the world for much of the time since the flood, but it is not a natural part of human psychological makup and it did not occur prior to the flood.

As to Budhists, you'd have to look pretty hard for a war which you could claim was CAUSED by Budhism, or for an instance of 20 Budhists flying airplanes into skyscrapers.