Buddhism and War

As the issue of Burma seems to slip away, many are still asking, 'what can I do?' From across the Buddhist world there are many suggestions, ranging from surgical strikes (Tom from Zen Unbound) to continued pacifism and khanti or patient endurance (Gary from Forest Wisdom, commenting on my last post here).

Tom also recently brought to my attention a couple articles attempting to address the issue of War in early Buddhist thought. The first, by Professor P. D. Premasiri (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) argues that Buddhism has no place for a so-called 'just' war:

...the Theravada canonical scriptures considered to be the primary source of the Buddhist system of moral values ... contain absolutely no instance in which violence is advocated as a means of achieving it [peace]. This is in clear contrast to Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavadgita that contain a concept of a righteous war [dharma yuddha].

Furthermore:

The doctrine of the Buddha is such that one who lives in accordance with it succeeds in living in the world without coming into conflict with anyone [na kenaci loke viggayha titthati].

And thus,

Conflict is explained ... as a consequence of an unenlightened response to one's sensory environment.... The selfish pursuit of sense pleasures [kama] is considered as the root cause of conflict. Where there is sympathetic concern, compassion, sharing, charitableness and generosity conflict can be minimized. The latter attitudes, however, are not instinctive. They need to be cultivated through proper reflection and insightful understanding.

And perhaps most importantly:

The point made by the Buddha in this connection is that people are psychologically incapable of forming opinions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous while being immersed in their defiled psychological condition. They may express strong convictions about what is just and right, but when objectively examined they turn out to be mere rationalizations of their pre-conceived notions, desires, cravings, likes and dislikes.

~

On the other hand Damien Keown (Goldsmiths, University of London) who in his article argues that Dr. Premasiri and early Buddhism both fall into 'psychological reductionism' when dealing with war and other moral issues. This is unfortunate, he argues, because it fails (perhaps) to evaluate the situation on the proper level:

Does not politics usually enter into the picture, not to mention, law, religion, history, as explanations as to why wars occur? To reduce all this to psychology is surely an oversimplification.

He argues that if we speak of the 'use of force' instead of 'violence' then suddenly Buddhism is more ambivalent.

...for example: to restrain an emotionally disturbed person who seeks to harm himself; to subdue rowdy passengers who threaten the safety of an aeroplane; to control violent thugs who terrorise innocent citizens... And if the use of force is justifiable in these circumstances, then why not on the larger scale of a military campaign?

And that, while not explicitly accepted, there are indications of a 'just war' theory in early Buddhism.

But it seems to me that Buddhism does indeed make a distinction between just and unjust wars. For instance, the just war in Buddhism is the war that would be fought by the Cakkavatti. Although as far as I am aware he is never actually depicted as waging war in the texts, he certainly has an army and presumably is prepared to use it when necessary (if not, why is it there?).

...The recent UN intervention in Bosnia may provide an example of the kind of situation where military force may be necessary as a last resort for humanitarian reasons. Situations of this kind seem to demonstrate that the use of force need not always be tainted by greed, hatred and delusion.

Thus he concludes:

i) to analyze war primarily in terms of psychology is to overlook its essential moral dimension; this is the result of the standard Buddhist strategy of psychologizing ethics; ii) the use of force can be justified in certain circumstances; iii) Buddhism accepts the concept of a 'just war' iv) there is nothing intrinsically immoral about a just war and v) participating in one need not be motivated by greed, hatred or delusion.

~

It does not seem to me that these papers are truly in conflict with one another, but rather they address the same issue from differing perspectives within Buddhism. Dr. Premasiri's point is that within Buddhism, the most important work we can do each day, each moment, is the work of removing our own defilements. Until then we are likely to cause more harm than good with all of our wars.

But, Dr. Keown's point is equally valid, that Buddhism does allow for force to be used to stop or avert suffering. The common ground between the two is in the waging of purely defensive wars. Premasiri suggests this, stating that "Buddhism does not envisage a society in which the necessity for engaging in war never arises. Perhaps the implication is that even a righteous Cakkavatti who will not engage in wars of imperialist aggression, would need to fight in self-defence."

Of course that still leaves the strict definition of defensive open to debate, but it would certainly rule out speculative 'pre-emptive' wars such as that currently going on in Iraq. It would also rule out ideology-based wars such as that in Vietnam forty years ago. And yet it would seemingly allow for the Allied involvement in the two World Wars as well as the NATO action in Bosnia mentioned above. That is, these wars were waged in defence of a pre-existing peace.

WWII

It gets murky of course, as the real world rarely conforms to simple principles and this is perhaps why Buddhism, for the most part, says little about 'the real world' and focuses on basic rules of conduct and meditative discipline. The American involvement in the second World War, for instance, does not very easily constitute a purely defensive war. Certainly, it could be argued that our Buddhist principles demand minimal response: perhaps crippling the Japanese Navy, strikes on any German U-Boats encroaching on US vessels, and nothing more. And yet we (most of us) feel that the employment of the entire US forces was indeed just.

IRAQ

On the other hand, most of us feel that the current war in Iraq is unjust. It is unclear who exactly we might be or have been defending: threats to the US and Britain were grossly exaggerated and even Israel it seems could hardly have been harmed by the weak and demoralized Iraqi army. On the other hand it is quite clear who has suffered from the war. It is perhaps debatable whether ordinary Iraqis are better off now than they would be if there had been no war. My impression is that they are worse off. Yet there can be no doubt that 3829 US soldiers have suffered the ultimate price and over 25,000 more have been wounded. That is not even to mention the emotional scars that thousands more will carry with them forever. One must remember that while over 58,000 US soldiers died in the Vietnam War, over 70,000 later took their own lives. (a recent story on US army suicides)

It seems also that, as mentioned, the principles of Buddhism could not allow for a war such as that in Iraq. Based on Keown's discussion of 'just war' theory in Aquinas, it seems that in that tradition as well, this war is unjust: "war must be declared by a competent authority, it must be declared as a last resort only after all non-violent options have been explored, it can only be fought to address a wrong suffered (the classic example is self-defence against an armed attack), if there is a reasonable chance of success, and with the aim of re-establishing peace."

Perhaps it is as one of my good friends says, that only time can judge (in fact the Dalai Lama himself has said this back in 2005, clarifying in 2006 that history had indeed made clear, " - too many killings"). On the other hand it may be clear enough that, as Rev. Danny Fisher put it:

At some point, everyone connected to this war needs to own their accountability and respond. They have to refuse service, refuse to pay taxes, refuse to sign over funds, demonstrate, and so on. A Buddhism that would excuse us from looking at the realities and the complexities of war is unacceptable.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first and last sentences, but Buddhism demands we each come to our own conclusions about specific actions (though Danny's suggestions are noble). And this lack of decisive and authoritarian ethics is perhaps both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness in Buddhism. The judgments of each of us must take into account our own mental states; we must know ourselves before trying to solve world-political issues. But Buddhism does not advocate self-knowledge for its own sake, but rather as a stage of development necessary for the sake of compassionate activity toward all living beings. We must understand were we are, and be willing to go boldly from there:

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.