Last week, Buddhists all over the Interwebs were wetting themselves over what was being called the “Buddhist Leadership Conference” in which a bunch of people who think of themselves as Buddhist leaders got to go to the White House and pose on the lawn with a big banner that said “US Militarism Breeds Violence, Not Safety: I vow to work for peace & freedom.”
I didn’t get into Buddhism to follow leaders. Nor do I think the Buddha’s advice to “be a lamp unto yourself” implies that we should be the followers of leaders. But I’ll leave that at that.
What bothered me most was the message these self-appointed leaders chose to deliver on behalf of me and the rest of us who describe ourselves as “Buddhists.”
These Buddhist leaders denounced US militarism as ineffective in promoting safety. Yet Buddhism has only been able to survive in countries where the right to be a Buddhist has been protected by a strong military. We Buddhists only get to be nice, soft, peace-loving wimps (let’s please be honest about that) because other people are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. We are unable, and frankly mostly unwilling, to do that for ourselves. I have great respect for the brave women and men who protect my ability to be a peace-loving wuss.
Stephen Batchelor said all of what I want to say in this article much more eloquently than I will ever be able to in an article he wrote for Tricycle magazine’s Winter 2001 issue called Spaces in the Sky. I’d suggest you stop reading this piece now, and just go read that instead. Here are a couple or paragraphs from that article:
Long before the Taliban came to power, the Bamiyan statue (of Buddha) had already been defaced by Muslim armies. As justification for his widespread destruction of Buddhist shrines and monasteries in India in the eleventh century, Sultan Mahmud declared: “That in proportion as the tenets of the Prophet are diffused, and his followers exert themselves in the subversion of idolatry, so shall be their reward in heaven.” Whether such a belief is a legitimate interpretation of Islamic teachings, it may have given the terrorists who steered Boeing jets into the twin towers the strength of will to commit their acts of murder.
The Buddhist response, both in eleventh-century India and in twenty-first-century America, has been a consistent refusal to resort to violence. “Hatred will not cease by hatred,” said Buddha in the Dhammapada, “but by love alone. This is the ancient law.” One can imagine this verse being intoned by Indian Buddhist monks while their monasteries burned, just as now devout e-mail messages are dispatched to the White House urging restraint and compassion. And just as its sentiments were ineffective in turning back the tide of Muslim aggression in India, so they may be equally ineffective in halting the course of violent retaliation against latter-day Islamic terrorism.
The sad fact of life in this world is that the banner those Buddhists leaders unfurled in front of the White House is not true. US militarism sometimes does make us safer. It is not a good solution. And it always breeds some level of violence in response. But to say that it doesn’t make us safer in the short term, and thereby allow us to work on better solutions, is naive and unworthy of people who would define themselves as “Buddhist leaders.”
When the riots were going on in Baltimore a couple weeks ago, it became very trendy to point out that it’s incorrect and somewhat racist to say to minorities in America that “violence is never justified.” Here’s a pretty good article that argues along those lines. Violence, far from never solving anything, actually does solve a whole lot of things.
And that is not good.
That is something we need to change.
But we can only change things that need to be changed after we admit that they are true.
I know the argument that the Taliban and ISIS exist because the American military has been doing bad things in the Middle East for a very long time. There is some truth to that. But, as someone said when I expressed some of what I’m saying in this blog on a Facebook post, “does militarism breed violence or does violence breed militarism?” It appears to me that it’s both. If you try to follow the trail of what violent act begat what militaristic response begat what violent act and so on and on, it’s like falling down the bottomless rabbit hole from Alice in Wonderland.
It’s sad and depressing to me that a group who feel empowered to represent me as my leadership can be so naive and hypocritical.
As Stephen Batchelor pointed out in his article, “The challenge for Buddhists is not to let a commitment to the principle of nonviolence blunt one’s critical acumen or deflect one’s gaze from looking steadily into the nature and origins of violence. It is far too simplistic to think of violence as originating solely in the psychology of hatred and anger. Violence is intrinsic to the function of the nation-state. Our freedoms and privileges in a liberal democracy are ultimately guaranteed by the willingness of the state to use violence to protect them.”
I want to see an end to US militarism as much as anyone else. War is bad. Violence is bad. Hate is bad.
But we won’t solve those problems by pretending that merely smiling beatifically and putting daisies in soldiers’ gun barrels is a permanent solution.
What I see when I look at that photo is not a group of people who represent a real movement to challenge militarism. It looks to me more like a lot of nostalgia for the failed and unrealistic idealism of the Sixties.
We need better leadership than that.
UPCOMING EVENTS
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 4, 2015 Hamburg, Germany LECTURE
September 6, 2015 Hamburg, Germany ZEN DAY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
September 16-19, 20015 Hebden Bridge, England 4-DAY RETREAT
September 26-27, 2015 Glastonbury, England 2-DAY RETREAT
November 6-8, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY RETREAT
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm there’s zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 there’s zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
Your donations to this blog mean a lot. Thank you!
1 !!
I AM THE BUDDHIST BLOG COMMENT LEADER
oh what a mistake
Too late. Now you speak for all of us.
And you WILL conform to our expectations.
Phaaart
That’s the spirit!
And good luck! Because my expectations change from minute to minute! And I hang leaders who fail to meet them!
Robin
Rusty Ring: Reflections of an Old-Timey Hermit
Militarism: “the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.”
The problem with US Militarism isn’t the defense part. It’s the “promote national interest” part. Where do you draw the line? When we invade countries because we think it is our national interest, it is a big gamble that results in a lot of death. Are we really safer without Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq?
There are some problems the military can’t fix. The movie “Charlie’s Wilson’s War” deals with the history in Afghanistan. What if we had stayed to support the Afghans after the defeat of the Soviets? Maybe things would be better, or maybe things would be even worse.
I used to work as an assistant to a lawyer. He told me to never go to trial, always settle out of court. If you go to trial, who knows what will happen? Using military force is like that, only more so.
Myanmar/Burma is an interesting example of a Buddhist country run (poorly) by a military dictatorship. Not sure exactly what lesson to draw from their example…
Did Japanese militarism make Japan safer in the first half of the 20th century?
Hello. Japan’s purpose was to remove non-Asian colonial presence. They succeeded. Gassho
Japan also received not one, but two nuclear bombs as a result of their militarism. That is the opposite of safety.
Even Gandhi said violence was sometimes necessary. But he felt that non-violence could be much more effective in resolving most conflicts. And I agree. But I’m not sure we could stop ISIS without violence. For a non-violence campaign to work, your opponents must believe they are civilized and moral. I don’t think ISIS have any moral standing. And they don’t seem to be civilized either.
There’s a certain smugness that I associate with upper middle class Buddhists, the sort of people who live in Marin County or Boulder. They preach nonviolence while enjoying the fruits of worldwide violence and oppression. The true problem is that civilization itself (especially government and capitalism) are founded on violence. If these so-called Buddhist leaders were really against violence they would be against the police, government, capitalism, and industrial civilization. Buddhists always fail as pacifists because they must survive in a violent system and so they compromise. But if Buddhism is truly about reality, it cannot deny that the real world is violent and sometimes violence is necessary. (Although I would have to agree that most USA military violence is not needed, is counter to our real interests and is not defensive. Brad has way too much trust in the military and police and perhaps wasn’t beaten by the cops enough back in his punk days).
Apropos of nothing really, but I once heard a Buddhist teacher named Diana Winston make a good-natured reference to the “Upper Middle Way” during a recorded talk.
I thought it was hilarious!
I am Buddhist and in the US military. I personally know one of at least 2 US military Chaplains attending this conference. Photos I saw – they were both in Uniform.
It seems in actuality to be a pretty eclectic bunch in attendance at this George Washington University sponsored event. The peace-nik faction just seems to have broken off and unfurled its banner. What-ever.
Brad’s commentary is spot on.
I believe it is a Soka Gakkai International (SGI) “leader” who was involved in setting this thing up. The US Military has more than a few SGI members. When you say you are Buddhist in some military communities the assumption is you are SGI. My Chaplain here at Fort Hood, Tx is kind of a mash-up of many Buddhist sects. He’s meeting people where they are at; he doesn’t lead shit. He facilitates so I and others can sit together at the Fort. It is really nice to sit with other Soldiers.
I was asked once, by a Lutheran Pastor (who sits Zazen), how can you be a Buddhist and a Soldier? I wanted to crack back about Christ and Soldiering but my teacher was near by. I felt compelled to give an answer he would be proud of. I told the pastor that I ‘d prefer we have as many Buddhist Soldiers as possible; looking deeply at one’s self, studying one’s self, and seeing the reality of the moment is thoroughly consistent with being a good Soldier. My teacher said afterwards he overheard my answer, and thought it to be “skillful”.
–Bingo!
My motivation doesn’t make my stated response less true or real.
Thank you for your service.
Sorry Brad but I have to agree with mtto and Thor 29. I spent a brief time being a neocon and thinking that we had been wronged by the current Muslim boogeyman but I got over it. Like all major historical empires, ours travels the world screwing people over for their resources and this is euphemistically called national interest. It has always generated lots of death and destruction (we’ve been at it since at least Teddy Roosevelt) that the folks at home never saw until the Vietnam war. Suddenly we became aware that we were not occupying the moral high ground and were fighting to prevent freedom rather than protect it. Reading some Howard Zinn will make it clear what our wars have been about. As a Buddhist layperson I can support self defense. If Muslim hordes were galloping across our country breaking shit and killing folks I would be shooting back. Nonviolence would be appropriate for ordained monks. But our foreign policy (like that of our rivals) is not defense. It’s about feeding the corporations and banks that profit from continuous warfare and a deceived public. Believing the narrative we are fed is naive.
Um, the Muslim hordes (ISIS and Al Qaeda) are galloping accross several countries. Do we just sit back and allow that to happen to the innocent people across the Middle East that don’t want it to happen but can’t do anything to defend themselves? Or do we wait until they are coming across our border? History shows that those that belive in the Caliphate will not stop until they are stopped. Unfortunately they only seem to respect violence.
It will be great in 500 years when everyone on earth is an enlightened being who all realize that violence is not the ULTIMATE answer to anything. Unfortunately we are not there yet and more unfortunately sometimes violence is the only answer that ultimately works.
Militarism sucks. It is not the military. However necessary the military may be to defend against real threats, it is too often used to further the interests of a small group of people to the detriment of those against whom it is used, and against the real interests of the American people.
We learned this during the Vietnamese conflict. We saw this blatantly unfold in Iraq. We can see it presently in the resistance to the attempt to resolve our differences diplomatically with Iran.
The people who push for war have money and power on their side. They have plenty of lackeys in the media. The majority of Americans seem conditioned to equate manhood with aggression. I am grateful for any voices countering this.
Calling such voices hypocritical and naïve is a bit extreme, don’t you think?
I think you draw an important distinction. The question is, where does “defense against real threats” end and “furthering the interests of a small group of people,” etc., begin? It’s a tough question, and I’m not sure that one can ever be considered independently of the other. I suppose karma always applies, in any case.
Some things are probably more important than our concepts of Buddhism. Saving Buddhism, or keeping the idea of Buddhism safe in my opinion is not enough to justify all the countless misdeeds the American military imposes on others around the world.
That’s not to say that violence doesn’t solve things or make some people safe. It’s just to say that I don’t feel like like protecting the right to practice Buddhism is justification of what we have been doing in the Middle East, or what we’ve been ignoring in Southeast Asia or Africa. In fact, the efforts of our military makes us remarkably and quite concretely less safe.
The underlying truths of Buddhism will always survive or be discovered by certain types of personalities. The traditions and facades are important and worth promoting and protecting, but they are not more important than other human beings.
I have to agree with Brad on this issue. American imperialism ensures American safety, yay! And “vowing to work for peace and freedom” is hypocritical and naïve, cuz like, only wussies do dat.
Oh for fuck’s sake, Brad. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either violence begets violence, or it does not. This candy-ass half-buddhist approach you’re espousing here is not why Buddhism survived in the various countries in which it survived. Indeed, for example in Tibet a lot of Buddhists were murdered because of intrigues in the overly violence-prone government, rather famously including Master Kamalashila and several Dalai Lamas. Buddhism survived in India and in Tibet _until_ serious military action was taken against these countries, not because these countries had strong militaries that prevented such action. India wasn’t even a country when Buddhism was thriving there.
What protects Buddhists is the same thing that protects anyone who has some belief system that they follow: keeping your head down and not fighting with the powers that be when they won’t tolerate you, and happily practicing in the open in times when the powers that be tolerate it. Buddhist philosophy and practice is remarkably friendly to both of these attitudes, which may be why we have survived as long as we have.
The U.S. military has, as several people here have mentioned, done an immense amount to provoke violence in the Middle East. If you look at it from a karmic perspective, which may feel a little uncomfortable, what we have done in the Middle East can be expected to have profound negative karmic impacts, and whether you think karma is some kind of magic or just the result of action rebounding in the world, I think it’s highly reasonable to expect that the U.S. will in fact suffer as a result of what it has done. We already suffer in the sense that we live in a horribly unjust society because we spend most of our national treasure on the military, rather than on things that actively help people. You and I don’t experience the brunt of this, but as you mention, the folks in Ferguson certainly did, and Baltimore, and so on.
It may indeed be that violent protest is a useful tool for raising consciousness at times. But Buddhism doesn’t say “don’t pound on the bad guys.” It says “don’t kill the bad guys.” We are perfectly free, as Buddhists, to engage in a variety of types of protest; all we are asked not to do is kill human beings, and even then only if we took that vow. This is where the practice of Aikido comes from.
My main beef with the conference you’re complaining about is that like you I am uncomfortable having other Buddhists pretend to speak for me. But they are allowed to do that, and I can’t stop them. If I have a problem with it, the right thing to do is figure out what my problem with it is, figure out whether it’s actually beneficial to communicate that problem, and then do so, as you have done here. I happen to disagree with what you’ve said, but as a Buddhist you are perfectly entitled to say it, wrong though you may be.
By perpetuating the idea that murderous violence is justifiable, that it is somehow okay to send drones into Pakistan and blow up a ton of innocent people, while occasionally, almost accidentally killing some bad person, you are encouraging that to continue. The very, very sad thing about this is that nobody _ever_ actually tries non-murderous action as a means of stopping violence. “We have to do something about ISIS to protect the innocents,” people say. Well sure, that would be nice, but let’s do something new about them, and not just the same old fucking thing that’s never, ever worked in the entire history of the world.
At least Brad seems to be moving away from the crypto-fascist ‘U.S.A. as World Police’ theory espoused by old Gudo. ‘And thinking about the real situation of the world, we can think that the Final Game of the World Tournament has ended without fighting, already. And I guess that the Winner of the Final Game might be USA. Therefore in such a situation, USA has possibility to change her Army into the Police of the World, and All Countries in the World will have possibility to change their Armies into each Branch Offices of the World Police. In other words I think that we, Human Beings, are able to begun to have the possibility to establish the Government of the Whole World. ‘
Jeepers! Gudo, Chaplain to the Illuminati! Brad, National Teacher of the New World Order!
WTF? It’s naive to oppose militarism. Why? Why, because there’s clearly a binary choice to be made between a) actively supporting any amount of hawkish militarism and drone strikes and ‘regime change’ and ‘collateral damage’, because soldiers are brave, and I want to be a wuss, or b) Complaining about militarism, and being a bit of a hypocrite, because you enjoy the protection of the state.
There’s no level of nuance possible, and Brad goes for a)!
You know there are other options, Brad. Like you could still be a wuss, and take an active part in defense. Get a job in a bunker in Arizona flying drones… it’s just like a video game, or a monster movie: no risk involved. You will end up killing a few brown children, but they’re really small, and really far away. And if you apply the level of doublethink you’ve shown in this article, I’m sure you can block that fact out anyway.
I used to really like this blog, I used to think that organised Zen was more than just a trendy salve for the effete bourgeois conscience, or a robes and sticks fantasy game for bored Californians. But I’ve been doubting that more and more of late.
From now on, I’m just going to sit and face the wall at home, and take nothing to do with Zen schools, groups, lineages, teachers and all that bs, and try to be my own lamp.
If Buddha had a choice between less ‘buddhism’ or less war, which one would he go for?
I’d rather die for peace than live in a world wracked by senseless violence and suffering.
Sorry we didn’t get to know you better.
Watch Robert Bresson’s “The Devil, Probably”. It’s a good film.
His film “A Gentle Woman” is also good.
Hi Leslie. Idealism sounds good, but it is not reality, and your statement posits a choice that doesn’t exist.
We’re all going to die but not “for” peace or anything else. We just die. And in the meantime, we live in the world that is.
I changed my mind. I’d rather live for peace than die in a world wracked by senseless violence and suffering.
What a shame. You had something interesting going on there before you ruined it with naivety.
In general, I agree with what Ted said.
“US Militarism Breeds Violence, Not Safety”
I don’t see anything false here if this statement is taken at face value. That a whole slew of details can be discussed back and forth doesn’t make it less true, seems to me. And are we talking short term or long term?
Long term, if peaceful ways aren’t replacing violence, someone will eventually crush the US. Probably nuke the whole world. But it’s true that other groups ARE violent, and what are the choices in the short term, in some/many cases? I doubt any peaceful means could have stopped Hitler, for example.
But “militarism” has a whole bunch of meaning in addition to simple violence (or preparedness for violence). It’s not just defensive; it’s also aggressive and offensive (offensive as in aggression). It’s an attitude as well as action.
Re Baltimore violence: Whaddya expect? I mean what does anyone expect? We’re a violent culture/nation/people etc. When we teach and role model violence (nation, military, authorities, parents, movies, etc., whatever) that’s what we’ll produce. Why should people respond with anything but violence if they (we) don’t practice and talk about peace?
“I vow to work for peace & freedom.”
That goes along with my values. I have boatloads of violence in me like anyone else; I wasn’t taught anything but reacting with anger as a way to deal with strong emotions and suffering. So my personal work has always been about peace–and freedom (for example from those imaginary conversations you recently wrote about which, for me, are most always angry springing from hurt and suffering).
And I don’t see how it contradicts Buddhist values. How can anyone practice right speech, for example (as I understand it), without peace inside? Same for not killing and all that.
And even if there were an issue with the whole statement that I just don’t agree with, oh well. There’s nothing so bad about it.
If we don’t talk about peace, if the concept isn’t out there as a topic to talk about and work on, how will anything ever change in the long run? Every day I see war vets with body parts missing in or around my apartment complex (not far from a VA hospital), a couple guys with massive PTSD and shitloads of psych medication…. A guy, a journalist who was held captive for 7 years or something in the 80s…Lebanon I think…suffering. Victims of violence and militarism. My stepfather was shell-shocked, as it was called (and he was violent), so was grandfather…What’s wrong with looking for a better way?
Leah, I half wonder if Brad is just trying to get us mad to show us something.
Yup, him and al Khalifa both
Minkfoot, Yeah, I thought of that. Writer’s device. After I posted I realized I always get at least a little annoyed with Brad (do I sound mad? I’m just wrinkling my nose and shaking my head and saying Pffft) when he starts off slamming someone and getting sarcastic and whatever.
Don’t know what he’s trying to show people, though. This just isn’t flying with my idea of logic.
Maybe Mr. Brad will explain.
No, I think he’s making good on his vow to end guru worship. It’s hard work though, even when he says something really stupid people give him credit for it being a planned lesson of some sort.
I think if we’re honest with ourselves we don’t really know how avoidable violence is – I can’t think of any country that can claim moral superiority to ours that isn’t also protected by our military (I’m Canadian and I’ve travelled extensively through Europe and I’m sick to death of people who are protected by American soldiers but curse American “militarism”) – I think that if all people and states are violent or benefit from other’s violence then the only thing you can really fault the U.S. for is being better at it than everyone else – I know that’s cynical and it’s not my vision or goal for humanity but I do wonder how nostalgic people will be for the American empire once it’s replaced by another superpower or power bloc. I also know this perspective may upset people who have been personally affected by state violence and it’s not my objective to excuse anything the American state has done, I just think that the rest of the world has to demonstrate that they’re playing by different rules for me to take their self- righteous criticisms of American conduct seriously – otherwise criticism of America is really just scapegoating and pretending that power and violence and misery would disappear along with America which I’m fairly certain is untrue.
I can only speak about my experience from participating in too many to remember anti war demonstrations. The following scenario doesn’t always happen but it happened enough to get my attention.
They always start out peaceful. It’s usually moms with kids and old people…then there is something about the night time that changes the energy. People show up with bandanas covering their faces, not a lot, but enough to make an impact. Before I know it, windows are smashed (sometimes there is looting). Some of the peaceful participants try to stop the ones who are dead set on destroying property. But they get smacked around too.
So of course the media focuses on them and not on the moms and old people who were there earlier. We are ordered to disperse. Things get ugly. People are arrested…
I understand anger and frustration but I truly believe there are some who take advantage of a protest march so they can steal shit. It happens anytime there is a disaster … man-made or Mother Nature.
I think if these people are destroying property to make a statement then attack the mayors office, police stations, etc. How about their mom’s house? Their own house?
The people whose businesses are destroyed and or looted are innocent and they certainly won’t be on the side of the protesters (who aren’t the problem but get lumped in with the assholes doing the damage). What about the ones who don’t have a job to go back to? Do you think they are happy?
If we want change then we have to change our consciousness. All sentient lives matter. Not just certain ones. If we continue to behave badly, we will eventually (maybe sooner than later) destroy ourselves and we deserve it. A lot of our problems come from our over inflated egos and that includes me. I can be queen of the bitches but I am working at changing my behavior because it doesn’t help a situation. Meditation has helped me with that.
As for people representing all Buddhists, I don’t see that they are and I think you are getting upset over nothing Brad. I respect you and see your point about the need for military. I am an Air Force brat. My dad served almost 20 years. Someone has to make a stand and get us to think and I don’t care if its a group of Buddhists, Catholics or Atheists. We are all humans and we have to change the way we think about violence.
Didn’t you recently write about your punk band playing an anti-cop song in a bar in Texas and the cops saved your asses from getting a beat down from some rednecks? Life is a paradox.
I think we need the police and the military. I am all for defending ourselves. I am the first to admit if someone attacks me or my loved ones I will respond with deadly force but I won’t go looking for trouble either. Wow, this comment was much longer than I wanted. Can you add a like button so I can click that instead of going on and on?
Lest we forget. Most people want to live in peace. Everywhere in the world, every religion, every ethnicity, every social class and gender: they want peace. They want to do what comes natural: eating well, humping, raising kids, singing and dancing, chillin’: and that takes peace. That’s not hippie idealism, it’s fact: if you don’t believe me, go ask some people. In most places at most times, that’s what most people do. History is ugly, because it only mentions the bad parts – most of the time, even during wars (until they got mechanized), most people were just doing that natural, non-violent stuff. Violence and hatred just use up too much energy if you keep them going for more than a few minutes. You don’t need buddhist ideology to be non-violent, you just need to be non-threatened.
These are fundamental facts of human life, predicated on our biology. I challenge anybody here to indicate otherwise. If you want people to hold onto hatred, or get them to kill, you have to screw them up – but if you screw them up right, it can last for many generations.
You can screw them up by beating them at school. You can screw them up by beating them at home. You can screw them up by screwing them when they’re young. You can screw them up by making their work alienating and insecure. You can screw them up by overworking them. You can screw the women up by frightening them and making them powerless, then they’ll screw their men up for you by making them think they have to be ruthless and fearless, when nobody really is. You can screw them up by ghettoising their community.
But by far the best way to screw them up is to drop cluster-bombs and and bunker busters and daisycutters all around them while they’re growing up. They’ll be so traumatized, so volatile, so reactive, so permanently full of fear, that they’ll see the ‘natural’ stuff as unimportant, and only raw survival by any means will make sense to them: and they’ll have a repetition compulsion from the trauma that will make them seek out danger. Suicide missions will seem like a great way to get away from the horrid, fear ridden state of their minds. They’ll adopt an ideology that matches the worldview they’ve learned. They’ll be so scared that anyone who disagrees with them at all is seen as an enemy who must be destroyed. This isn’t about morality, as Stephen Batchelor tritely comments, it’s about how we’re made: you or I or anybody could be doing beheadings for ISIL if we’d grown up through the chaos in Iraq.
The world is already screwed up, and nations need armies to defend themselves, and, yes, America does play a part in other countries’ security. But offensive, preemptive militarism doesn’t make anyone safer in the long term. Those self-important Buddhists with the banner make a good point.
Don’t screw people up in the first place. And if a screw-up attacks you, defend yourself, but don’t screw them up more by abuse them, robbing them, or pounding them back to the stone age. You don’t need buddhism for that, enlightened self interest will do the trick. America, d’oh.
“Existence is irrational to begin with.” – from the Japanese film Izo directed by Takashi Miike
A monk said that in the film:
http://i57.tinypic.com/2hrereu.jpg
It’s why Buddhism encouraged antinatalism in the past. The entirety of humanity is fucked:
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=B
Amko4fvkC0
The blood eagle of the vikings, the scaphism of Persians, the Lingchi of the East Asians, the samurai’s decapitation, and etc. All share one body with this hell.
I wish I were an elephant, cetacean, or corvid (e.g., crow) during a time without man.
Listen to this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAmko4fvkC0
Also, a good song:
https://youtu.be/bCRnNKwCjuU
Very depressing song about the disillusionment and despair accompanying the loss of faith. Conveys a strong feeling of aloneness in a cold world without God or anything close to, like the Dharmakaya or Dao.
Life is an endless joke.
Life is NOT an endless joke.
It is constantly ending.
A better song –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTEYUFgLveY
Did you also listen to this song?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAmko4fvkC0
Have you listened to this song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LcP9Db1Ktk
this is better than the hipster shit you linked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFM_lTDuVbQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-fQa7PD2Y
“Yet Buddhism has only been able to survive in countries where the right to be a Buddhist has been protected by a strong military.”
Right. Like Myanmar. Well, that’s a koan, as one already suggested.
Buddhism, as any other religion, has survived even in Russia and China where monks were deported to labor camps and temples destroyed. There was a strong military, but it was not there to protect them.
I am German. If our military would be stronger, we would not tolerate the NSA to spy on us like they do. So you are right, we should all become stronger than the US to protect us – and Buddhism. Just remember how many Buddhists were killed in a senseless war in Vietnam. In Cambodia. In Laos. By the strong US military.
This piece of yours makes as much sense as Jundo’s last one on Sweepingzen, obviously having comments deleted. Quoting a cancer “survivor” who censors others in a Zenforum by for the millionth time misunderstanding that the Dharma does NOT end physical suffering, and that not a million hours of zazen will do so. Whatever your mind has achieved.
The same goes for those Buddhist leaders. There is absolutely NO way to end physical suffering. So what are they asking for? It’s just about how you deal with it in your mind.
I’m sorry, I quite like Brad, both in his writings and personally, but here must I disagree. This seems to be much too dualist.
I mean, I am quite in favour of being able to defend oneself. I am big and stocky, and I have practiced karate and people don’t easily go agressive on me. So what is valid on an individual level must also be valid on a collective one.
The problem with European defence in the past 50 years is that most European nations have depended heavily upon the USA for their own defence, with the exception of France, which has been deeply loathed by the US just for that manifestation of defiance. Now that the USA no longer seem so willing to come to their defence, the other nations of the EU are starting to rethink their attitude, but quite slowly. Which leaves France alone to fight against the Islamists in Africa, for example.
But fundamentally, There is a huge difference between militarism, which is the concept that the Military have THE solution to all the problems (Just nuke ’em!), and a sound defence and police.
It is not by chance that the names for the various ministries of defence have changed to that instead of the prewar “Ministry of War” or others. Nowadays, the concept of attacking for, for instance, a newspaper article (France-Prussia, 1870), or a refusal to let the other country’s cops do the investigation on your soil (Austria-Serbia, 1914) sounded preposterous until 2W attacked Iraq for something they didn’t do. But much of the USA’s foreign policy has been imperialist ever since the Monroe Doctrine.
So as much as I can’t blame any country for having a defence force and police forces, I cannot condone the idea that militarism ought to be accepted.
Then, we also ought to consider that, in the mere point of view of efficiency, racism and short term views are counter-productive, either in the military or the police field.
Just to stick with the Police, if (and IF) their objective is public peace, then the various police forces in the US are doing a very bad job. I can only testify of what happens in my city, here in France, where the racism of the police forces against North Africans (be they immigrant or French but of NA origins) has made it so that they can no longer intervene in the sections of the city where they are numerous. If they double park and block the traffic, anyone else would get a ticket and a towing, but they (the NA) get away with it, because they can claim that the police was acting racist if they try to make them comply to the law. If, on a street the Police Forces are asked to check for suspects, they will only arrest people of NA appearance. So if the wrongdoer is European in appearance, he (or she) will easily get away with it.
There one sees how much we have a problem with egality and that this ought to be tackled with.
In the book “There Is No God and He Is Always with You” Brad says he likes some of the approaches taken in Alcoholic’s Anonymous. I think these “Buddhist leaders” should take some advice from AA’s 12 traditions. Such as:
no. 2: “Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.”
no. 6: [A Buddhist] group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the [Buddhist] name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property, and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.
no 9. [Buddhism], as such, ought never be organized….
And perhaps most importantly:
no 10. [Buddhism] has no opinion on outside issues; hence the [Buddhist] name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
This morning I had a dream that I was held on the shoulders of two men, and with their encouragement I proceeded to do a handstand with one hand on each of their two shoulders. They backed up toward a wall as I was doing this, involuntarily in support of my actions, and when they were backs against the wall I realized that if my legs toppled over, I would now fall down the slope on the other side of the wall. I came out of the handstand.
Like to say thank you to mtto and Shinchan for enabling my comments on the last thread, and probably for being the basis of that dream.
I’ve really enjoyed reading the comments on this thread, thanks to everybody here as well.
I watched a PBS excerpt on a women’s unit of the Peshmurga the other night. I learned that while the ISIL fighters believe they will go to heaven and be rewarded with many virgins if they are killed in what they believe to be a holy war, they also believe that if they are killed by a woman they will go straight to hell. I guess in many ways the Jihadists are fighting for male supremacy, and their real bogey-person is a woman with an AK-47.
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Makes me want to write to the powers that be in Massachusetts, and encourage them to find a woman executioner, when and if the day comes for Dzhokar to meet his maker- as a means of discouraging such acts in the future. Not that I wanted Dzhokar to get the death penalty; I don’t think the death penalty is an effective deterrence, and the money is better spent elsewhere.
I think the U.S. military is fine. The institution that needs to be dissolved is the C.I.A. Have they given good advice, in their entire history? Let’s see: Guatemala?- no; Iran?- no; Bay of Pigs?- no; Gulf of Tonkin?- no; WMD?- no. Interesting to hear David Brooks last night on the PBS newshour talking about how the majority of Republicans in Congress apparently now believe the Iraq war was a mistake (along with the vast majority of members of the public, he said).
The Shia and Sunnis, in conjunction with the members of God’s favored race, are likely to be the end of the planet, if Monsanto and Bayer don’t get us there first (bye bye, bees!).
I agree that pacificism is only an effective tool for social change under certain circumstances.
Yesterday I read an article that proposed that the reason we currently lack funding for public projects in the U.S.A. is that a certain portion of the population doesn’t trust a powerful central government. These folks apparently believe that allowing the government in the U.S.A. to successfully fund projects and programs would encourage everyone to believe in the efficacy of government, and therefore result in a more powerful central government, and that they are determined at all costs to avoid. So the idea is to vote and act in such a way as to sabotage the success of the central government.
I can understand the suspicion of a strong central government, and the aversion to allowing it. The bill of rights is all about that. I do think that underfunding government programs in an attempt to convince the public that central government doesn’t work and power should be returned to the individual is a Luddite strategy.
The controversy over the TPP, I get it, I listened to Elizabeth Warren talk about the power of the multi-nationals overriding U.S. law. David Brooks said that Mexico has become so much better a country due to NAFTA; I’ll hope that’s true, but why should we agree to a treaty that allows the overriding of our laws? To say that nobody’s done it yet, as Obama did, is a pretty lame argument, IMO. I realize that Americans are going to suffer as the rest of the world comes out of third-world status, and I’m not opposed to a trade treaty, but I don’t want Monsanto and Bayer to be able to sue the Europeans to force them to allow a poisoning of their bees, or pay ransom.
The real violence that’s going on is against the environment, and against the empowerment of women and minorities. Where are the cops for that?
“Where are the cops for that?”
Right here.
Practice enables me to take, a few more, thoughtful, least harmful, actions per day. Actions that arise out of something other than fervent belief.
This approach to world policing, seems a profoundly humble offering; I feel compelled to mock it.
Thank you, Mark. I always enjoy your commentary.
Indeed. We do what we can do.
“To be is to do.” – Socrates.
“To do is to be.” – Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Doo be doo be doo.” – Frank Sinatra.
Doo, do-doo, do-doo, doo do-doo
Doo, do-doo, do-doo, doo do-doo
Doo, do-doo, do-doo, doo do-doo
Doo, do-doo, do-doo, doo do-doo
Dooooo
Lou Reed
I’ll see your Frank Sinatra and raise you Lou Reed’s “colored girls:”
Doo do-doo do-doo do do-doo
Doo do-doo do-doo do do-doo
Doooooo!
Take a walk on the wild side, baby.
“I half wonder if Brad is just trying to get us mad to show us something.”
Or maybe Brad is just a conservative Buddhist. He is from Ohio after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CYsOGTA0eo
As a former US army ranger and member of the Veterans For Peace board of directors and the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, I could not disagree with you more
I also posted this as an open letter over on the Buddhist Peace Fellowship’s page, as part of our conversation there about the US Buddhist Leaders delegation to the White House, and our banner action afterwards: http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/can-we-critique-us-militarism-when-we-benefit-from-it/
Hi Brad,
We haven’t met, so … hello fellow dharma traveller! Thanks for the opportunity to say something more about BPF’s banner action at the White House.
I wanted to respond to your provocative blog post, “I Wish I Could Agree,” where you take issue with the US Buddhist Leaders convergence at the White House, and particularly the photo with the banner “U.S. Militarism Breeds Violence, Not Safety. I Vow to Work for Peace and Freedom.”
I wanted to clarify that the banner action was not an official part of the convergence, but a side action organized by us here at the Buddhist Peace Fellowship. I’m not sure if you are familiar with us — we’ve been around since the late 1970s doing peace and justice work from a foundation of Buddhist practice. These days, we’ve undergone a bit of a radical rebirth (http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/10-principles-of-our-radical-rebirth/), embracing compassionate and unflinching confrontation of the out-of-control systems that cause harm, from racism to capitalism to U.S. militarism.
We’re actually in 100% agreement with you when you say, “we won’t solve those problems by pretending that merely smiling beatifically and putting daisies in soldiers’ gun barrels is a permanent solution.” That’s why our main push this year is training five communities in nonviolent direct action (http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/wise-disruption-help-5-cities-train-in-dharma-direct-action/), linking our practice to larger social movements which are confronting racism, climate catastrophe, and militarism. In our home region of the San Francisco Bay Area, we’ve been working with local BPFers to hone our own skills at planning direct actions against racist policing, fracking, and destruction of community-built urban farmland. All these actions are in connection with broader social movements for change, because we believe that it’s going to take large numbers of people working together to transform these life destroying systems.
Direct Action Videos:
http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/buddhist-blockade-against-police-militarization-video/
http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/dig-for-wisdom-not-for-oil-buddhists-join-eco-blockade-against-fracking/
http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/farm/
As a Buddhist activist, I appreciate how the dharma helps me to hold paradox and contradiction, which is necessary for challenging systemic harms while not having the luxury for stepping outside of them. There is no pure place from which we can critique. In saying, “We Buddhists only get to be nice, soft, peace-loving wimps (let’s please be honest about that) because other people are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect us,” you imply that critique is not possible from this paradoxical position. I respectfully would argue that our position within U.S. empire requires us to critique it, and also be prepared that our lives and privileges will change as it transforms.
At BPF, we also held paradox in our discussions of what to put on this banner, partly because our group isn’t the “peace-loving wimps” you seem to imagine. Some BPFers wanted to be sure we were specific about critiquing “U.S. militarism” and its problematic role in empire building, rather than making a statement about “militarism in general.” Their support for freedom movements that won independence through militarized responses, such as African resistance against European colonialism, made a simple critique of “militarism in general” feel complicated. Political banners never quite capture the full complexity of our political stances, but the best ones point to the possibility of transformation and freedom.
I’m curious (honest questions here): You say a lot about what won’t change the logic of militarism. What movements or actions are you feeling more inspired by? What are the leverage points that might help us transform the logic of violence that’s perpetuated by U.S. militarism? What do we do when the best short-term choice involves harming others to protect ourselves, even if we know it will have long-term consequences? Is it different if we’re talking about individuals, oppressed groups, or countries with enough power to start pre-emptive wars to ensure “safety”?
These would be good questions not just for you Brad, for all us of peace-loving, compassionately-confronting, justice-demanding folks to explore together.
From a fellow dharma traveller,
Dawn Haney
Co-Director
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
Brad, the one thing I question here is just how many times US Militarism “makes us safer” in response to problems that were ultimately caused by US Militarism (or CIA-type operations). I would argue that US foreign policy does a much greater proportion of harm than good, vastly more in fact. And, as has been stated before, passive resistance/civil disobedience, while non-violent in approach, so often invites brutal retaliation. So, before bashing those “beatific” monks with banners, let’s determine whether those same monks would be willing stand in the face of oppression and face severe beatings (or worse). Sometimes, a photo-op is just the starting point.
Thanks, Johnny Tet!
JbkrangerLanguages, the father of my very good friend was at Peleliu, and I believe in Okinawa as a marine. He came home a confirmed pacifist. He was from Texas, he went down to Alabama to march to Selma.
Would that be what you mean, “I couldn’t disagree more”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ojp1E9ftck
Swami Beyondananda’s Top 11 Ways to World Peace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OBxTPF1zbg
The comments attributing current world problems to U.S. are pointless. Yeah, Karma. Big whoop. Watch me make little circles with my extended index finger. Cuz it’s pretty much all karma. And you don’t just sit there and go “OOH, KARMA,” and shrug your shoulders and wait to die. You still have to act.
I think being a Jew helps with this discussion. There are still some absolutist pacifistic Jews, and there are the chasids who see the state of Israel as one big sin, and see Hitler as a “divine Angel of Wrath” sent to chasten a sinful prople, but most Jews can look at the events of the 20th century and understand that violence has its place. Exactly how much is an endless debate. Pacifism didn’t liberate Europe in general and the camps in particular. Pacifism didn’t repel the invasions of 1948, 1967, and 1973. I may look at parts of what Israel has done since then as unwise and counterproductive at best, criminal at worst, but I have no patience for people who want to pretend that an absolutist pacifistic stance is tenable.
I also posted the below as an open letter to Brad over on the Buddhist Peace Fellowship’s page, as part of our conversation there about the US Buddhist Leaders delegation to the White House, and our banner action afterwards: http://www.buddhistpeacefellowship.org/can-we-critique-us-militarism-when-we-benefit-from-it/
I’m posting the text of the letter here since it’s part of this conversation too. If you click through to the article, it also includes several links that were intended to give context to how this banner project fits into BPF’s larger work as political Buddhists. I tried posting a comment here on Saturday, but it appears it got caught up in moderation because of the number of links. My apologies for being late to the conversation with some of this clarifying information!
-dawn
———-
Hi Brad,
We haven’t met, so … hello fellow dharma traveller! Thanks for the opportunity to say something more about BPF’s banner action at the White House.
I wanted to respond to your provocative blog post, “I Wish I Could Agree,” where you take issue with the US Buddhist Leaders convergence at the White House, and particularly the photo with the banner “U.S. Militarism Breeds Violence, Not Safety. I Vow to Work for Peace and Freedom.”
I wanted to clarify that the banner action was not an official part of the convergence, but a side action organized by us here at the Buddhist Peace Fellowship. I’m not sure if you are familiar with us — we’ve been around since the late 1970s doing peace and justice work from a foundation of Buddhist practice. These days, we’ve undergone a bit of a radical rebirth (link), embracing compassionate and unflinching confrontation of the out-of-control systems that cause harm, from racism to capitalism to U.S. militarism.
We’re actually in 100% agreement with you when you say, “we won’t solve those problems by pretending that merely smiling beatifically and putting daisies in soldiers’ gun barrels is a permanent solution.” That’s why our main push this year is training five communities in nonviolent direct action (link), linking our practice to larger social movements which are confronting racism (link), climate catastrophe (link), and militarism (link). In our home region of the San Francisco Bay Area, we’ve been working with local BPFers to hone our own skills at planning direct actions against racist policing, fracking, and destruction of community-built urban farmland. All these actions are in connection with broader social movements for change, because we believe that it’s going to take large numbers of people working together to transform these life destroying systems.
As a Buddhist activist, I appreciate how the dharma helps me to hold paradox and contradiction, which is necessary for challenging systemic harms while not having the luxury for stepping outside of them. There is no pure place from which we can critique. In saying, “We Buddhists only get to be nice, soft, peace-loving wimps (let’s please be honest about that) because other people are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect us,” you imply that critique is not possible from this paradoxical position. I respectfully would argue that our position within U.S. empire requires us to critique it, and also be prepared that our lives and privileges will change as it transforms.
At BPF, we also held paradox in our discussions of what to put on this banner, partly because our group isn’t the “peace-loving wimps” you seem to imagine. Some BPFers wanted to be sure we were specific about critiquing “U.S. militarism” and its problematic role in empire building, rather than making a statement about “militarism in general.” Their support for freedom movements that won independence through militarized responses, such as African resistance against European colonialism, made a simple critique of “militarism in general” feel complicated. Political banners never quite capture the full complexity of our political stances, but the best ones point to the possibility of transformation and freedom.
I’m curious (honest questions here): You say a lot about what won’t change the logic of militarism. What movements or actions are you feeling more inspired by? What are the leverage points that might help us transform the logic of violence that’s perpetuated by U.S. militarism? What do we do when the best short-term choice involves harming others to protect ourselves, even if we know it will have long-term consequences? Is it different if we’re talking about individuals, oppressed groups, or countries with enough power to start pre-emptive wars to ensure “safety”?
These would be good questions not just for you Brad, for all us of peace-loving, compassionately-confronting, justice-demanding folks to explore together.
From a fellow dharma traveller,
Dawn Haney
Co-Director
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
I am thankful that there are Buddhists like you out there, Dawn. You keep on keeping on. But your dharma isn’t my dharma. I spent many years focusing on parties and powers and systems and protesting. And at some point I realized that I was externalizing all sorts of shit onto everyone else, and that the biggest problem wasn’t all this shit out there I had to rail against, but the shit in here. The direct action I needed to engage in was to get my ass down onto a zafu and shut the fuck up for a bit. And the pathetic little practice I’m working on is how I am dealing with the biggest source of violence and hatred and bigotry in my life — me.
I had a longterm relationship with a woman who had been trained from infancy to ignore her own feelings and shut herself down in order to do what her parents and teachers and husband deemed necessary. And when we were going out, she was working on paying attention to her feelings and trust them, and figure out what she wanted. At the same time, as an ADHD brainstyle person with an addictive personality, that was what I was trying to work against. My need was to stop paying so much attention to my feelings and develop the ability to put aside my feelings and move on. And I think that sort of thing is going on here — both your worldview and approach and Brad’s are important and valuable, because they are different paths that are necessary for different people. Namaste, motherfucker. 🙂
Thanks, Yoshiyahu. I recognize a lot of what you say there from my own life.
I agree about different courses for different horses. I’ve generally got more of an acting-in than an acting-out personality, so sitting quietly comes easy to me… and can become a trap: the world and everybody in it can go hang as long as I feel calm, poised and ‘zen’. Of course the world and her evil twin, reality, keep showing up and buggering that phoney equanimity.
There may well be a comfortable middle course to steer between working on self, and working with all the other weirdos, but I’ve yet to find it.
I think the only implication is that if the U.S. were at war and your family and friends were directly in harms way your peace loving position might make a dramatic shift and become more protection loving. Brads not a very complicated dude.
I suppose there is the implication that you take your liberties for granted. That’s not a paradox, that’s just the way people are. The only difference is that religious folk must contrive paradoxes to rationalise their lack of luxury to give up their luxuries.
Personally, what I find disturbing is that you would waste your time on a silly blog like this rather than doing any real peace loving work. And no, that’s not another one of your f*cking zen paradoxes. The implication is that you’re more concerned with appearance than doing anything real.
“Personally, what I find disturbing is that you would waste your time on a silly blog like this rather than doing any real peace loving work. And no, that’s not another one of your f*cking zen paradoxes.”
And yet, here you are as well. How paradoxical.
You’re forgetting, I’m not a religious person so I don’t need to lie. I’m very concerned with appearances, and I don’t do anything real, really. Only religious folk require paradoxes.
Well, in that case, I acknowledge your obvious superiority.
Apology accepted, rat God.
Furthermore, that you would deign to come here at all and hang out with us religious folk for the altruistic purpose of pointing out our worrisome inconsistencies and neuroses is nothing short of saintly (please forgive me if a cannot, in my ignorance, find a suitably secular word).
If you should happen to find some small amusement while sharing your enlightened unenlightenment with us, I, for one, am humbly grateful that we have, in some small way, been able to repay you for your generous condescension on our behalf.
I am truly in awe of your awesomeness. We are not worthy.
Glad to read this, Dawn,
“That’s why our main push this year is training five communities in nonviolent direct action (link), linking our practice to larger social movements which are confronting racism (link), climate catastrophe (link), and militarism (link).”
Yes. Non-violence doesn’t mean passivism, it doesn’t mean putting one’s head in the sand, and it’s not about being a “wimp.” It’s action or speech carried out in a non-violent way, in a empathic or compassionate way. MLK Jr. comes to mind as well as Rosenberg’s non-violent communication, Thich Nhat Hanh, and so on.
Non-violence and non-violent communication has been a part of my practice for a long time, and I can say that it requires a lot of strength, courage, and compassion sometimes–it’s not for the faint of heart. And lots of practice. It’s much easier to lash out or criticize mindlessly, with little awareness, in the way we’ve been taught (or habitually repress as others have been taught, referring to one of the comments). And if we want change in the world, it has to start with us. Sounds like your organization is doing good work.
Yeah dawn!
Yeah man!
Come on, man. Get real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBo7hhBAfA
Hey Zafu! Guess what?
Hi, Fred Jr. Please forgive my interruption, but I could not resist the opening. I have watched from the sidelines for many moons as other commenters on this blog have been schooled selflessly and relentlessly by an honored guest we all know and love. You know of whom I speak.
In your capacity as our Buddhist Blog Comment Leader, I implore you to endorse and join in this Divinely inspired, sacred secular hymn that I have composed in honor of our frequent and exalted commentator, the Great and Wise Zafu:
Zafu, Zafu
Pointing out our snafu
Doesn’t do what we do
Never tells a lie!
Zafu, Zafu
Ever analytical
Never hypocritical
Would not tell a lie!
Zafu, Zafu
Trolling through the Zen Zoo
Sharpening his Ginsu
To cut us down to size!
Zafu, Zafu
Second seat to Xenu
If L. Ron Hubbard only knew
He’d sue your sorry ass!
(I think that last bit needs more work. Divine inspiration goes only so far.)
Dog Star, why so Sirius?
🙂
Don’t be silly, and don’t get me wrong, I’m in complete support of Dawn and the BPF. I can critique and support at the same time because of my Zen training. Ordinary people can’t do this. Ordinary people without Zen training can’t contradict themselves or hold contradictory information in their heads. They are either for something and support it without question, or they are against it and are only capable of condemnation.
And as far as hanging out with religious folk, I don’t have the luxury to go elsewhere.
“Ordinary people without Zen training can’t contradict themselves or hold contradictory information in their heads. They are either for something and support it without question, or they are against it and are only capable of condemnation.”
Hmmm, are you so very sure about that?
PaRaDOX, Mr. Rats God. Only Zen Masta can hold paradox in head. Everybody else no can do.
Just imagine what that makes a person capable of, when they can say one thing and do another. When you can have your cake and eat it too, without conscience.
Fighting ISIS with a banner is like fighting cancer with vitamins and positive thinking.
Dear Wedged, your use of cancer as a metaphor is apt. Whether you fight cancer with vitamins and positive thinking or surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, you aren’t fighting it with a method that works reliably. Vitamins and positive thinking are probably going to lead you more quickly to the terminal state, but surgery, radiation and chemo may rob you of so much quality of life that your temporary victory against the cancer will be pyrrhic. Or it may be worth it.
But if you want to have a reliable cure for cancer, it has to involve fixing the bug in the DNA that’s causing your own body to generate tumor cells. It’s not going to involve any surgery at all, and it’s not going to involve radiation, and it’s not going to involve chemo. These are the equivalent of war in your metaphor. We don’t have that cure for cancer yet, but there is promising research going on that may well lead to such a cure.
Wouldn’t it be nice to try for a cure for the world’s pain that doesn’t involve war, while we are at it?
Buddhism is a cure for meaninglessness. It’s not a cure for greed, ignorance, and hate.
Baaaaaahahahaha
Sorry Z you’re a funny troll
The problem I have with this kind of statement from Buddhist leaders is the singling out of the United States for criticism, rather than all the other countries who use violence at the drop of a hat to try to advance their interests. It makes Buddhism look like a partisan, anti-American movement, rather than a genuinely independent perspective that stands above all the fighting going on in the world, and opposing all of it equally.
I suppose it’s true enough that US militarism breeds violence, but it’s hardly the source of violence in the world. In fact, it’s fair enough to suggest that as pig-headed and stupid as the American neocons are, in the absence of a worldwide American military presence, things would probably be a lot worse. They could certainly be a lot better if the US weren’t so aggressive, but without their Empire, there’s plenty of other players out there who would be even worse. So this sort of thinking isn’t just partisan, it’s short-sighted.
Of course, one of the things I find most annoying about the worldwide left is its lack of historical perspective and worldliness when dealing with the real world. The problem here comes in Buddhism taking on leftist politics as if they are natural to it, which they are not. And I say that as someone whose politics are pretty left-liberal.