[ecosportpol_ru]

Could violence and war ever be justified from a Buddhist point of view?

[Ilaubuas]

In my worthless opinion...
Yes, only in relation to eradicating one's own defilements...
Other than that...it will just be the case of Bush Jr justifying it for Bush Sr.'s feather cap...so no...
Military service....that's another sticky topic..

[Enladalusange]

Could violence and war ever be justified from a Buddhist point of view?

In my personal opinion, not from a Buddhist point of view.

There would not be any need for war or the use of violent means if there is a pacefull mind, if there is a Right View about things, if there is awarness. One of the goal of Buddhist practice is to be aware of our own violent feelings so not to be caught up by them and endeger ourselfs and others.

But I am open to different aproaches from other buddhist points of view about this topic.

[Vulkanevsel]

It isn't within the purview of Buddhism to justify war or not. The sole objective of the path is to refine one's perception of the phenomenal world.

[FelicitaJ]

It isn't within the purview of Buddhism to justify war or not. The sole objective of the path is to refine one's perception of the phenomenal world.

If violence happens within one's country, or an invading force starts taking over, then what ? What if one's country requires military service?

[Helloheshess]

from post #4

Pink true.

Think it must take a great deal of courage to be a conscientious objector.

[FBtquXT8]

However if violence happens within a country or an invading force starts taking over, then what ?

We'll likely do our best to minimize harm, but because we're not awake yet we don't have the clarity of perception needed to know what that means, or to know the wisest course of action. We'll each do what we do as we react to immediate circumstances in the absence of this clarity - because we're trapped in our cloudy and estranged perception of the phenomenal world.

We stumble around blind and endangering even in our best intentions - this is why we practice...because we don't know.

[Rqvtwlfk]

Think it must take a great deal of courage to be a conscientious objector

I was one, but I was motivated less by courage, and more by an aversion of murder and a craving for righteousness. Both just more dukkha.

[@Aerodyno@]

from post #8

Yes maybe the second most difficult thing is to be a person,the most difficult to be a parent.

[iouiyyut]

I recall a Tibetan Buddhist teacher at a talk a long time ago saying that if one knew for sure that someone was going to kill lots of people then killing that person would probably be the best option.

But how does one know for sure if one isn't enlightened ? Might this action then perhaps cause other unforseen events which would cause even more suffering? .

[GrottereewNus]

from post #10

Agreed. Would anyone challange the idea that killing Hitler would have been unskillful - once it was known what his plans were?

[ChicasCams]

We stumble around blind and endangering even in our best intentions - this is why we practice...because we don't know.

Cetainly Pink dear,

[ZZtop]

Might this action then perhaps cause other unforseen events which would cause even more suffering?

This is a good point... I don't have a definitive answere for this but sometimes I think it is good to let things happen the way they have to. Sometimes we are deluded by what we think is good or bad.

But I realy don't know.

[itepearce]

Have any of our more well read contributors on the site know what the Buddah had to say on this subject, if anything.

You will find some references here Gerry: (see URL)

"Violence in Society : A Study of the Early Buddhist Texts "


URL

If you put key words in the 'search' facility at that site you will be able to find Pali Canon sutta references for them.

[happyman]

1. From one of my admired Monastic personality, the late Chief Rev Dr K Sri Dhammananda, Maha Thera Nayaka of Malaysia & Singapore, in his writing: War & Peace

2. From one discussion here

3. Magadhans & Vajjis: Mahaparinibbana Sutta

4. Excerpts from the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra:
http://www.ymba.org/bns/bnsframe.htm
1. First Major Precept
On Killing
A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.

As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a Parajika (major) offense.

10. On Storing Deadly Weapons
A disciple of the Buddha should not store weapons such as knives, clubs, bows, arrows, spears, axes or any other weapons, nor may he keep nets, traps or any such devices used in destroying life.

As a disciple of the Buddha, he must not even avenge the death of his parents -- let alone kill sentient beings! He should not store any weapons or devices that can be used to kill sentient beings. If he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.

11. On Serving as an Emissary
A disciple of the Buddha shall not, out of personal benefit or evil intentions, act as a country's emissary to foster military confrontation and war causing the slaughter of countless sentient beings. As a disciple of the Buddha, he should not be involved in military affairs, or serve as a courier between armies, much less act as a willing catalyst for war. If he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.
(Commentary: 55. A Bodhisattva should not act as a country's emissary for the purpose of spying or fostering war. However, if he were to do so to put an end to war or military confrontation, he would be acting in a spirit of compassion. The key words in this precept are for personal benefit or evil intention.)

21. On Violence and Vengefulness
A disciple of the Buddha must not return anger for anger, blow for blow. He should not seek revenge, even if his father, mother, siblings, or close relatives are killed -- nor should he do so if the ruler or king of his country is murdered. To take the life of one being in order to avenge the killing of another is contrary to filial piety [as we are all related through the eons of birth and rebirth].
(Commentary:67. A Bodhisattva must not return anger for anger. This is because wherever there is anger, all compassion is lost. "To seek revenge and maim and kill and prosecute" is to create the causes of future sufferings and ensure that they will never end. Even today, this lesson has unfortunately not been learned despite all the hindsight available to us from past warfare and genocide: "President Clinton came [to Kigali] today to talk to scarred and mutilated survivors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and to acknowledge that the world could have protected them, though it did not . . . Both in his meeting with the victims and the speech to an invited audience here, Mr. Clinton called for sharper vigilance against genocide and swifter prosecution of its perpetrators ..." (NY Times: March 26, 1998).

N.B. Buddhists do not cultivate a sense of vengefuless because they realize that sentient beings know only Cause and Effect in the present, but not in past or future lifetimes. The present perpetrators might have been the victims in a previous lifetime; thus, to exact retribution now may be to jeopardize the parents of one lifetime in order to avenge the parents of another! This truth can be glimpsed in the current wave of ethnic conflicts in Africa and the Balkans.) 5. A story...
http://www.thuvienhoasen.org/phatphapcanban1-11.htm
Two years before the Buddha's passing, his clan met with a great misfortune. Vidudabha, a son of King Prasenajit of Kosala and of the daughter of one of the Sakya rajas, was on a visit to his mother's family, where he was insulted for his low birth. Enraged, he vowed to take revenge on the Sakya. Undeterred by the expostulations of the Buddha, he, after, the death of his father, marched against Kapilavastu and put to the sword the whole Sakya clan.
According to Buddhist legends, Kosala was a large kingdom in Northern India with strong military might. Before he took refuge in the Buddha, King Prasenajit of Kosala had gone to the neighboring state of Kapilavastu to seek a bride among the Sakya clan. The Sakya clan looked upon itself as the superior clan and reluctantly passed off their maid Mallika as a princess for the marriage. King Prasenajit loved Mallika deeply. She bored him Prince Vidudabha. When the Prince was eight years old, he once went to Kapilavastu to play and to tour the newly completed lecture hall. The Sakya clan despised the Prince as being born of a maid and ridiculed him, thus sowing the seeds of feud and vendetta. After King Prasenajit died, the Prince ascended to the throne as King Vidudabha. In revenge of the ealier contempt, the King sent troops across the border.
To rescue the innocent Sakya clan from this disasters, the Buddha, sat quietly under a withered, waiting for King Vidudabha to arrive with his troops. As expected, King Vidudabha passed by with his army. When he saw the Buddha, he had to dismount to greet the Buddha, and asked: "Why do you choose to sit and meditate under a withered tree?" The Buddha replied: "This is a very good. The shade of a relative's clan is better than other shades. The Buddha's statement moved king Vidudabha deeply. He immediately ordered a retreat of his troops. The fire of war were extinguished for the time being. However, King Vidudabha could not dimiss the feeling of enemy. He led troops for yet another fight. Along the way, he again met the Buddha and was persuaded to withdraw his troops. This happened three times. However, eventually King Vidudabha's troops invaded and seized Kapilavastu, ready to massacre the people in the city. Maudgalyayana was compassionate and was moved to wield his supernatural powers. He collected 500 outstanding talents from among the Sakya clan in his begging bowl in order to save them. But later, when he reopened the bowl, he found that they had all turned into blood. King Vidudabha entered the city and captured thirty thousand military and civilian personnel. He planned to bury them alive from the waist down into the ground, and then sent elephants to trample them to death. Mahanaman, son of King Amrtodana, cousin of the Buddha and uncle of King Vidudabha, had succeeded to the throne as King of Kapilavastu. He ruled his kingdom well with loving kindness. For the sake of saving lives, King Mahanaman begged of King Vidudabha to let him dive to the bottom of the River, and before he came out of the water, to allow the thirty-thousand captives run for their lives. As to those who could not escape they would remain at the victor's disposal. King Vidudabha thought to himself, "No matter how good you are at diving, you could not be under the water until all the thirty-thousand have escaped!" So he agreed. After the thirty-thousand people has all fled the city, King Mahanaman was still underwater. King Vidudabha then sent his men diving into the river to find out why. In fact, King Mahanaman had tied his hair to the roots of trees at the bottom of the river and held rocks with his two hands. He had courageously given up his own precious life to save his subjects. King Vidudabha occupied the kingdom of Kapilavastu, but shortly afterwards, the palace was on fire. Both he and his beloved concubines were not be able to escape because they were soundly sleeping. All of them were burned to death. It clearly showed the certainty of cause and consequence. 6. Buddhist Military Sangha

7. The Dhammapada
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...dhp/index.html
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.

[retTreftowhexm]

from post #16

Thanks plwk dear,

I still feel and think that I do not justify war or violence from a buddhist perspective. One who has the Right View about things has no need for violent means. This means that war, as an extreme expresion of a violent mind, maybe has its root in the three "Buddhist Poisons": Greed, Hatred and Delusion wich are overcome thorugh the deep realization of the Four Noble Truths, the commitment with the Eightfold Noble Path and the full dedication and discipline in cultivating a stillness, dispasionate and pacefull mind impregnated in awarness and full consiusness.

[NikolaAAA]

from post #15

Thanks Aloka dear for the ]http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/img/smilies/hands.gif[/img]

[TepSteade]

from post #15

Thanks Aloka great reference.

[Affolfembonge]

from post #14

Hi Gerry,

I think if these issues are in the hands of our governments then we're powerless as individuals to do anything other than vote, protest, or refuse to fight, depending on personal choices.

As for the question of killing within the context of being a Buddhist practitioner, references have been provided by both plwk and myself.

from post #20

As our membership is worldwide, some members are resident in places where there is capital punishment for murder.

In my view to kill someone as a punishment for murder is an "eye for an eye" mentality and not part of Buddhist teachings or practice.

If someone killed a relative, what possible benefit, as a practitioner,would there be in seeing that person killed too ? None.

[77Dinaartickire]

From a Buddhist point of view it's most probably correct to say that war is a mark of failure.

I can understand that young guys are full of vim and pepper and want to 'sort out the world',put it to rights.
This is a great ego trip. As for our leaders encouraging the common people to go to war,well what can we expect from a politician?

The sad thing is we allow such ...... to dictate our views. We must be really stupid to allow this.
Wake up,take control of your own life.