SECBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jack Carroll) (01/30/91)
As do many Buddhists, I take the Five Precepts daily. Though this is sometimes done with less attention than I should like, there are those times when one or the other of them really stops my mental traffic. Over the past few days the precept against killing has raised many questions for me. The precepts are presented in several places in the Buddhist scriptures, but they essentially enjoin the same conduct each time. In the Dhammika Sutta of the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha says of the householder: "Let him not destroy life nor cause others to destroy life, and also not approve of others' killing. Let him refrain from oppressing all living beings in the world, whether strong or weak." Sn 394. While the karmic results of killing or encouraging others in this conduct may vary depending upon the circumstances, this deed seems to be considered one that always produces unwholesome karmic results. In certain cases a nation may consider it imperative to take measures which are not compatible with a practice of non-violence. Theistic religions can define a "just war" as one in the interests of their god, and it can be so defined and blessed by a clergy which derives its mandate from this god. Buddhism, as I understand it, acknowledges nothing in the nature of a "just war", and the term itself has long struck me as bordering on an oxymoron. I have read that in Sri Lanka the recruitment of Buddhist chaplains for the army raised opposition, as by holding such positions the sangha would violate the Vinaya rules, and also place themselves under the control and in association with the military, which would seem to violate a fundamental Buddhist position. With the United States and it's allies pursuing war with Iraq the subtlies of this precept become more apparent in everyday life. This raises two types of questions for me. First, in what ways am I causing and approving of others killing by continuing through what may be the performance of very ordinary social and civic actions Second, in what ways can (should?) one not just refrain from certain actions contributing to killing (the Gulf War in this case), but rather become involved in positive actions which contribute to the likelihood of non-violence. I think that one of the great stumbling blocks, which Chogyam Trungpa among others has pointed out, is that in attempting to act in a manner which we see as counter to hate and aggression, we often escalate our activities in such a way that they reflect the same anger and aggression. I sense, very unclearly, that the right conduct in this involves being extremely watchful that whatever one does not harden into a sort of "monument" to oneself. I would be very interested in learning what other Buddhists may feel about this subject in relation to their practice. Jack Carroll
kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) (02/02/91)
In <1991Jan30.005811.533@nas.nasa.gov> SECBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jack Carroll) writes: >As do many Buddhists, I take the Five Precepts daily. In the Sutra of the Great Assembly, Shakyamuni Buddha says that the time to practice the precepts is the first 500 years after his death. >The precepts are presented in several places in the Buddhist scriptures, >but they essentially enjoin the same conduct each time. In the >Dhammika Sutta of the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha says of the householder: >"Let him not destroy life nor cause others to destroy life, and also > not approve of others' killing. Let him refrain from oppressing > all living beings in the world, whether strong or weak." Sn 394. The buddha-nature is inherent to all life. At some time in the future, one may practice the Bodhisattva way and gain enlightenment and become absolutely happy. Killing a Buddha brings sever karmic retribution to the doer. >In certain cases a nation may consider it imperative to take >measures which are not compatible with a practice of non-violence. >Theistic religions can define a "just war" as one in the interests >of their god, and it can be so defined and blessed by a clergy >which derives its mandate from this god. Theistic religions do this becasue their religion obviously doesn't work (i.e., if they have to go against it to fulfill their own prophecies, such as the creation of the Isreali state in 1948) nor does the religion give them the wisdom to do it peacefully. Therefore, it is limited in scope. >This raises two types of questions for me. First, in what ways am >I causing and approving of others killing by continuing through what may >be the performance of very ordinary social and civic actions This fighting in your (our) environment is probably manifestation of karma from previous lifetimes. Even Saddam Hussein has the buddha-nature in his life, he is just deluded to it. What is needed is to spread Buddhism throughout the world (starting in your own` environment) so that as many people as possible can awaken from their delusion. >Second, in what ways can (should?) one not just refrain from certain >actions contributing to killing (the Gulf War in this case), >but rather become involved in positive actions which contribute to >the likelihood of non-violence. Nichiren Daishonin says that the basic cause of suffering is incorrect religious beliefs and false ideologies. This comes, not from himself, but from his study of the Buddha's sutras. >From his study, he proclaimed that Nam-myoho-renge-kyo was ultimate Law of cause and effect and the cause to eradicate suffering is to chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Doing not only will change past karma, but will change immutable karma (karma to be experienced in future lives) and allow one to become absolutely happy in this lifetime (one can't be happy, if noone or someone is not). >I think that one of the great stumbling blocks, which Chogyam >Trungpa among others has pointed out, is that in attempting to act in >a manner which we see as counter to hate and aggression, we often >escalate our activities in such a way that they reflect the same >anger and aggression. This comes from one belief's don't allow one to live the way they want to. Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo does allow one to act the way that they believe. Its the difference between a true religion and false one. You can't really understand until you try chanting. -- Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Respectfully, Keith Evans kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov
pingali%gaia@cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (02/07/91)
This is a response to Jack's questions on nonviolence. There might be situations in which apparent non-action is better than direct action. I say "apparent" because, however invisible they may be, our mind-states have an effect on the world. I cannot give a direct answer to the questions that Jack poses - everyone has an individual response. What I say below may or may not appear to members of this list as being complacent. The Buddha spoke of four states of the mind as being Brahma Viharas (divine abodes). These, as many here are no doubt aware, are metta (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy) and uppekha (equanimity). There are formal meditation methods to develop each of these four qualities of the mind. In the Pali tradition, vipassana (insight) is combined primarily with metta practice. The other three are usually considered to be supporting practices. They are used to develop that light and joyous state of mind that is best for the practice of vipassana. (As an aside, mudita is actually considered the most difficult of these states to fully develop. It is the ability to take powerful delight in the happiness of others). There are situations in which the most skillful thing we can do is to cultivate one of these states. The Buddha described karuna as being that trembling in the heart in response to suffering. The formal practice of karuna is to begin by extending compassion to oneself and then to slowly expand our net of compassion until it includes all the beings of the universe. This is done by the repetition of the phrase "May I/x person/ all females/all males/all animals/all beings be free from suffering". The near enemy of compassion is pity and the far enemy is cruelty. Pity looks like compassion but is actually a reaction based on aversion - it looks at the suffering and says "this is unbearable". Cruelty is the far enemy because one cannot feel cruelty and compassion at the same time. Through the formal practice, one develops the ability to be fully present and open to a great deal of pain without turning away from it. And strangely enough, compassion leads to joy. This state may or may not impel us to direct action. That would depend on the situation and the person. This practice may not appear as much of a response to war, but it is actually quite a powerful one. Considerably more skillful than the anger, pride and jingoism that are the causes for the war. Sridhar