The Way of War

[Aaron]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the historical implications of warfare as it relates to ancient religions many consider to be pacifistic in nature. The notion escaped me for the most part until I did some digging and found numerous accounts of warfare being supported by these same religious institution. If it had been a passing notion, one or two incidents, I would've thought that this was just a random occurrence, but what I found instead was a pathology of religion, if not overtly, covertly supporting violence for the sake of their own nation or religion.

 

My examination is meant to be impartial, but at times it's very hard to be impartial when one hears some of the things that have occurred and been sanctioned by the monastic and religious hierarchy. Perhaps starting with the most recent account in modern history would be a good start and to do that we need to go to Sri Lanka where the state, which calls itself a Buddhist nation is committing genocide against the indigenous Tamil minority that has been seeking independence. Atrocities abound, entire towns laid to waste, children and women raped and killed, all sanctioned by the Theravada Buddhists Church that backs the country.

 

Now to be honest, they're not advocating the rape and murder of innocents, but at the same time they're not speaking out against it either, rather they are supporting the regime full well knowing what is happening, all because they fear that the Tamil might gain control over the nation and banish Buddhism. This is something that's occurring in the here and now, yet most people will never hear about it, and Buddhists refuse to address it, yet it is happening, and the war has yet to end, even though concessions could be made to end it, if one side had compassion for the other.

 

If this seems like an isolated incident, it isn't, Shaku Soen, a well known Zen Master and the teacher of D. T. Suzuki, was one of the first to advocate war as a form of Zen training. In Zen Holy War, Josh Baron examines this relationship, perhaps the most chilling quote from the book comes from Soen himself when he says, "I wished to inspire our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them.... that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil."

 

Baron goes on to say that, "From Soen's point of view, since everything was one essence, war and peace were identical. Everything reflected the glory of Buddha, including war. And since the Buddha's main purpose was to subjugate evil, and since the enemy of Japan was inherently evil, war against evil was the essence of Buddhism. "In the present hostilities," Soen wrote, "into which Japan has entered with great reluctance, she pursues no egotistic purpose, but seeks the subjugation of evils hostile to civilization, peace and enlightenment." (Japan's invasion of Russia was entirely self-serving and hardly reluctant.). To Soen, war was " an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment.""

 

Baron uses the research of Brian Victoria for much of his discussion regarding the Zen complicity in the war effort, amongst the most disturbing of Victoria's findings were the comments made by Sawaki Kodo, one of the great Soto Zen patriarchs of this century. Kodo said that he and his comrades "gorged ourselves on killing people." Victoria includes a later quote from 1942 where Kodo wrote, "It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

 

Victoria continues to examine Kodo's explanation, in which Kodo essentially states that if one kills in a state of Zen or no-mind, then that act comes from a state of enlightenment. He wasn't the only one, in fact many of the Zen Masters at the time stated the same thing, and why wouldn't they? If they had not supported the war effort their temples would've most certainly been shut down, the monks sent back to the lay practice or other monasteries that did support the war.

 

The most reprehensible of this support was to come in during what has become known as the Rape of Nanking. During the capture of Nanking on December 13th, 1937, the Japanese raped, killed, and tortured over 350,000 Chinese. It's still considered one of the most brutal acts of war ever perpetrated by man. Nazi officers present during the invasion actually left the battlefield, unable to watch the brutality.

 

The horrors didn't end on one day though, the Japanese continued to kill the Chinese populace indiscriminately, and the Buddhist religious officiated much of it, watching and condoning the actions, even supporting the state held sentiment that the Chinese were lesser human beings, even less so than dogs and cats. To put this in perspective, more people died in Nanking, raped, tortured, and killed, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, all under the auspice of the Buddhist monks and Masters. Afterward they used Chinese children as target practice, there are even accounts of boys being lined up to be used for bayonet practice, and officers beheading Chinese men in order to demonstrate the "proper way to behead a man."

 

I could go on, but I don't think many of us would have the stomach for much more, suffice it to say that it took nearly 50 years before the Zen temples were willing to admit their complicity and also the nature of their acts. Hopefully it's a lesson well learned.

 

Before you say, "well that was just the Zen Buddhists!" It might be wise to look further into the past, back to the 17th century, when we find out exactly how the Gelug-pa sect came to rule under the Fifth Dalai Lama. Derek Maher, in an article, explains that the Fifth Dalai Lama praised the Khoshut Mongol ruler, Gushri Khan, in part because the Khan eliminated and supressed the other Buddhist sects in Tibet, helping his own sect come to power. Although not as brutal as what Japanese did during the first half of the 20th century, it's no less disturbing.

 

I could stop there, but there is much more to address, enough to fill volumes in fact, the Ch' ang Buddhist support and aid of the Maoist government during the Korean War is another modern example, as is the Theravada Buddhist Temples support against the Muslim insurgency in Southern Thailand. The similarities between the two different factions is eerily common, both groups provided lodging for the military, and it wasn't uncommon for the monks to participate in active military duty. To the best of my knowledge the Buddhists in both countries still support these actions to this day, under the auspice of compassion.

 

This shouldn't eliminate other religions from their own complicity, of course, I have chosen to use the Buddhist traditions as an example, because for many of us, Buddhism seems to be completely antithetical to the concepts of war.

 

Taoism has a long and bloody history as well, in fact it had less compulsions about waging war than the Ch'ang Buddhists seemed to have. Both historically supported war, particularly against oppressive rulers, but oftentimes supporting oppressive rulers when it seemed fit.

 

The Hindu, another religion most consider to be peace loving, is not without it's own bloody history, with numerous conflicts arising over the last 2,000 years, many of them quite bloody. Even today it's not uncommon for one to hear of a riot occurring in which the Hindus attack the Muslims or visa versa.

 

I didn't write this to point fingers at any one religion, in fact I left out the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other Eastern Religions, because we are all to familiar as it is with their own bloody histories, rather I wrote this in the attempt to make people aware of the complicity of religion in warfare, how a supposedly righteous and pure ideology can turn evil and sour, if that religion comes under attack by others.

 

We should never forget that religions are abstract concepts, nor that ideas alone are not worth the loss of human life. So long as we value the religion itself over the value of another's life, this will continue. So long as we turn a blind eye to the capacity of man's evil, even under the supervision of the "righteous" we will continue to perpetrate evil acts in the name of compassion.

 

Aaron

Edited April 1, 2012 by Twinner

[robaire]

 

if your 'deity' commands you to kill your own kid, I'd say you have a very serious psychological problem.

 

________________

 

 

(and it's even more serious when abraham actually goes along with it) ....

[Cameron]

I am not sure how historically accurate this is and it is purely from meomory. I read it ages ago somewhere. That Shakyamuni Buddha himself said something along the lines that even he couldn't purify the warlike karma of the Shakya clan.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha was quite a high level person as you know. So if even his attainment couldn't stop his own family from warring how much less would our puny accomplishments?

 

Karma is karma.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Cameron

[robaire]

tasting war up close ........... <link>

I have been in hiding to avoid arrest for the last few months because my writing got me in so much trouble. I chose a remote location out in the woods................My wife is overseas right now, and the situation has wrecked us financially. Well, last night I (luckily) approached my "hideout" via a route I normally do not take. Lucky thing I did, because there were at least 30 "storm troopers", and I mean, they really were like from Star Wars, with the full face helmets, shields, riot gear, ect, they were laying on their stomachs waiting for me to walk up to them in the dark. I saw them from the sidewalk when they were still about 100 feet away fortunately (lucky lucky lucky) and continued walking past like normal. They must not have known it was me. I have spectacular night vision, which saved me. .................

 

...........They were completely blocking the entire stretch of entry needed to get across the river (where there were rocks to step across on). I chose that spot because it has fences on 3 sides and a river on the 4th side to keep people out, and most people will not step stones to get to a place they don't care about.......

[Aaron]

 

if your 'deity' commands you to kill your own kid, I'd say you have a very serious psychological problem.

 

________________

 

 

(and it's even more serious when abraham actually goes along with it) ....

 

I don't think you've read the entire original post. The major gist of it was that ALL RELIGIONS have propagated war, so what do we do about it?

 

Aaron

Edited April 2, 2012 by Twinner

[konchog uma]

i think atheists and agnostics have the same problems with aggressive tendencies.

 

maybe the problem is with human nature and not with religion.

[Aaron]

I am not sure how historically accurate this is and it is purely from meomory. I read it ages ago somewhere. That Shakyamuni Buddha himself said something along the lines that even he couldn't purify the warlike karma of the Shakya clan.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha was quite a high level person as you know. So if even his attainment couldn't stop his own family from warring how much less would our puny accomplishments?

 

Karma is karma.

 

Most Buddhist abhor violence, yet they also understand that violence is a part of this world. Buddha actually was against violence and encouraged rulers to live in peace with one another. The problem is that there is also a complicity in most Buddhist countries, where the religion can come under attack from the government if it defies their national objective. Historically speaking most Buddhist Temples will either stay out of it or if they are forced, tactfully accept it. Just look at the Dalai Lama's sanctioning of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The Dalai Lama was under intense political pressure to support the act, even though there is nothing to support it in the teachings of Buddha. Violence, after all, begets more violence.

 

This isn't my personal opinion in regards to the assassination, I wasn't opposed to it, I'm just using it at as an example.

 

Aaron

Edited April 2, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

i think atheists and agnostics have the same problems with aggressive tendencies.

 

maybe the problem is with human nature and not with religion.

 

That just absolves religion of blame, it doesn't really solve the problem or even address it. If one is okay with a religion being the foundation of a culture and society, then they should also be okay with placing blame on that religion if its done something wrong.

 

Aaron

Edited April 2, 2012 by Twinner

[Birch]

Here's my latest opportunity to assert a most recently acquired opinion (which of course means it's better than all the others I previously held:-)) that religion as an organized set is not living and as such cannot inform the living without prejudice.

A community of practice, well that's something else.

 

-----opinion----yada yada---

 

The TTC seems to address this in the stanza about the degradation to rules that happens after "Tao is lost".

That's how I read it anyway.

[thelerner]

i think atheists and agnostics have the same problems with aggressive tendencies.

 

maybe the problem is with human nature and not with religion.

I agree. I get the feeling most 'religious' wars were land and resource grabs done under the cover of religion. Same old same old, label another group as 'other' and steal there stuff. Sometimes religion is the cover, other times skin color or nationality.

[zanshin]

I agree. I get the feeling most 'religious' wars were land and resource grabs done under the cover of religion. Same old same old, label another group as 'other' and steal there stuff. Sometimes religion is the cover, other times skin color or nationality.

 

I agree, and all the variations of "they ain't like us." have been used as tools to dehumanize the opposing group and get the masses to fall in line behind the land and power grabbers.

[Aetherous]

The Dalai Lama was under intense political pressure to support the act (capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden), even though there is nothing to support it in the teachings of Buddha. Violence, after all, begets more violence.

 

There are these philosophical questions, where you must make a tough decision. I remember one was something along the lines of:

 

Killing people is bad...but lets say there's a man who is killing thousands of people, and you have the opportunity to stop him. The only way is by killing him yourself...and it's easy, safe and guaranteed to work.

 

So what do you do? Kill one bad life to save a thousand good lives, or adopt non-violence and allow a thousand good people to be killed so that one bad life may continue?

I doubt the Buddha ever spoke of this exactly...but why can't a Buddhist contemplate this type of thing for themselves? What if the Buddhist sees that their own personal actions are the same as the actions of all other people...then if they adopt non-violence in the scenario, they are actually killing thousands of people by proxy, through their decision. The blood is truly still on their hands.

 

I think I remember hearing a Buddhist teaching about making the better decision at all times. So it would make sense for the Dalai Lama to say that it'd be good if a terrorist were caught. It's not purely good, but it'd be better than the alternative.

 

Life requires complex decisions sometimes, and you just have to try your best.

 

War can be incredibly complex, too. For instance, not everyone that participates in an unjust war committed unjust acts. Maybe not even 99.9% of the people do. Judging others from across time (if it happened in the past) and across much space (half a world away most often) can lead to incredibly inaccurate conclusions regarding the people involved. We need to be there to truly know.

 

It can be easy to say religious people are hypocrites, for many reasons. The most obvious is that, as human beings, anything we try to do ends up failing, since our minds like to maintain balance. The more rigid you are, the more you are destined to fail. Rules are meant to be broken. Etc. Just look at New Year's Resolutions.

 

So hypocrisy is a very common thing...a human thing. War also seems to be a very human thing, since it's taken place all throughout our known history. Something to accept, and keep in mind for our own benefit...not to be ignorant of.

 

My personal belief regarding spirituality is that accusing other people of things, wanting to punish them for their misdeeds, to oppose them since we're on the "good side" and they apparently are not...these things destroy our spirituality quicker than anything. Then it becomes just a facade. If we're acting in such ways, then how can we even begin to speak of other people's spirituality, since our own is already gone? Saying any religious person is a hypocrite is simply coming "straight from the horse's mouth".

 

It's better to take it easy, trust that other people are trying their best and that we don't know the full story, forgive, let go, help people in need even if they've made mistakes, etc...these things are true spirituality. True religion.

 

So, hopefully it makes sense why we're instructed to not judge other people.

 

Buncha random thoughts...hope you enjoy.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

i think atheists and agnostics have the same problems with aggressive tendencies.

 

maybe the problem is with human nature and not with religion.

 

 

Human nature is Recreational; loving and creative. Destruction and violence come from the need to remove a harmful or damaging creation of our own.

 

Throw in survival instincts which are heavily suppressed by our bloated cerebral and prefrontal cortex, and you have one of the most insane creatures on Earth!

 

 

 

Okay but seriously, i do not beleive that human nature is inherently war and destruction.

 

 

I think human nature and the nature of the Tao are intrinsicly intertwined. Yin and yang. Imbalance is not human nature, but a symptom.

 

 

All of life and its influences affect our balance. Religion is not an inherent cause of war, but it is neither any form of preventation.

 

 

All individuals are [to be heald] accountable for their actions and participations.

 

All masses are made up of individuals who are still accountable for their participation in war or a mass orgy.

[konchog uma]

That just absolves religion of blame, it doesn't really solve the problem or even address it. If one is okay with a religion being the foundation of a culture and society, then they should also be okay with placing blame on that religion if its done something wrong.

 

Aaron

 

it doesn't claim to solve or address the problem, although it does address the problem by suggesting that the problem might lie in human nature. hahaha you are criticizing me for not solving the problem of religious war with a single post.. get serious.

 

i am not saying that religions are innocent. but it seems that you have already made up your mind what you think (so there goes the ability to be flexible in conversation).

 

how do you place blame on a religion. a religion is a collection of ideas?! you can't place blame on an idea. you can place blame on a person. but the moment you say "religious people are more prone to war than non-religious people" i will ask you to prove it. thats all.

 

the logic of A. people form religions B. people fight wars THEREFORE C. religions are the cause of wars has major holes in it. there may well be other factors at play that you are not considering.

[Aaron]

it doesn't claim to solve or address the problem, although it does address the problem by suggesting that the problem might lie in human nature. hahaha you are criticizing me for not solving the problem of religious war with a single post.. get serious.

 

i am not saying that religions are innocent. but it seems that you have already made up your mind what you think (so there goes the ability to be flexible in conversation).

 

how do you place blame on a religion. a religion is a collection of ideas?! you can't place blame on an idea. you can place blame on a person. but the moment you say "religious people are more prone to war than non-religious people" i will ask you to prove it. thats all.

 

the logic of A. people form religions B. people fight wars THEREFORE C. religions are the cause of wars has major holes in it. there may well be other factors at play that you are not considering.

 

I don't think I was advocating that you solve the problem in one post, rather that you avoid solving the problem by absolving blame.

 

I'm interested in seeing how often religion is used as a motivator for war and how often the religious leaders follow the public sentiment in order to avoid displeasing the government or the masses.

 

I think I provided enough examples of the Buddhists doing this, I could provide more if that would help. I don't think we really need examples, I think most people can see this quite clearly.

 

All in all, there is no religious institution that I know of that isn't without blame in this regard, so my original intent with this thread was to point out how religions back war and oftentimes distort their doctrines in order to support those acts.

 

Aaron

 

 

[Aaron]

There are these philosophical questions, where you must make a tough decision. I remember one was something along the lines of:

 

Killing people is bad...but lets say there's a man who is killing thousands of people, and you have the opportunity to stop him. The only way is by killing him yourself...and it's easy, safe and guaranteed to work.

 

So what do you do? Kill one bad life to save a thousand good lives, or adopt non-violence and allow a thousand good people to be killed so that one bad life may continue?

I doubt the Buddha ever spoke of this exactly...but why can't a Buddhist contemplate this type of thing for themselves? What if the Buddhist sees that their own personal actions are the same as the actions of all other people...then if they adopt non-violence in the scenario, they are actually killing thousands of people by proxy, through their decision. The blood is truly still on their hands.

 

I think I remember hearing a Buddhist teaching about making the better decision at all times. So it would make sense for the Dalai Lama to say that it'd be good if a terrorist were caught. It's not purely good, but it'd be better than the alternative.

 

Life requires complex decisions sometimes, and you just have to try your best.

 

War can be incredibly complex, too. For instance, not everyone that participates in an unjust war committed unjust acts. Maybe not even 99.9% of the people do. Judging others from across time (if it happened in the past) and across much space (half a world away most often) can lead to incredibly inaccurate conclusions regarding the people involved. We need to be there to truly know.

 

It can be easy to say religious people are hypocrites, for many reasons. The most obvious is that, as human beings, anything we try to do ends up failing, since our minds like to maintain balance. The more rigid you are, the more you are destined to fail. Rules are meant to be broken. Etc. Just look at New Year's Resolutions.

 

So hypocrisy is a very common thing...a human thing. War also seems to be a very human thing, since it's taken place all throughout our known history. Something to accept, and keep in mind for our own benefit...not to be ignorant of.

 

My personal belief regarding spirituality is that accusing other people of things, wanting to punish them for their misdeeds, to oppose them since we're on the "good side" and they apparently are not...these things destroy our spirituality quicker than anything. Then it becomes just a facade. If we're acting in such ways, then how can we even begin to speak of other people's spirituality, since our own is already gone? Saying any religious person is a hypocrite is simply coming "straight from the horse's mouth".

 

It's better to take it easy, trust that other people are trying their best and that we don't know the full story, forgive, let go, help people in need even if they've made mistakes, etc...these things are true spirituality. True religion.

 

So, hopefully it makes sense why we're instructed to not judge other people.

 

Buncha random thoughts...hope you enjoy.

 

See my response above Scotty... You've made some good points. My argument though, is that we need to be aware of what's going on in order to be able to make any valid and real changes in the future.

 

Lets just look at the complicity of the Christian religion in regards to the war in Iraq. I can't remember many churches opposing the war, even though there was very little real evidence to support it.

 

So, what I am getting at isn't placing blame so much, but rather that we learn from our mistakes and stop blindly following religious leaders under the pretense that every decision they make is ordained by god, buddha, or enlightened thinking.

 

Aaron

Edited April 2, 2012 by Twinner

[Seth Ananda]

That just absolves religion of blame, it doesn't really solve the problem or even address it. If one is okay with a religion being the foundation of a culture and society, then they should also be okay with placing blame on that religion if its done something wrong.

 

Aaron

I disagree.

look at the Christians for instance. The first century Christians were very happy and loving pacifists - as their teachings demanded. Their religion spread, [alot] and caught the attention of Rome. The Politicians were on a look out for a new religion to unite the people, and Constantine chose the Christian one eventually as it was the fastest growing religion.

 

from that point on all the Horrors committed were not committed by Christians but by a political war machine in religious garb.

 

I can't call them christian, as they were not following the actual commands of Christ.

The people themselves who actually carried out their orders may have believed themselves to be Christian, but they were following what politicians demanded, not what Christ demanded, and most of them had no Idea what was In the bible as no one but priests were even allowed to read the bible at that time.

So In reality, their religion was really Roman war machineist as that is what they were following.

 

The Other thing is that positions of power, even ones in Religious institutions attract Psycho/Sociopathic or sadistic Individuals.

 

Those peoples primary motivation is obviously not to be religious {unless possibly it is a war like tradition} but to have an avenue and authority to fulfill their needs. So again these people are not 'really' there to be religious. Its a front.

 

All this said, it can seem like religious organizations can become very corrupt, as Individuals within it get bought or won over by politics, or give way to baser cravings or greed, but my argument is that as soon as this happens, it is no longer a religious organization at any point that it turns away, or finds clauses to Ignore crucial core elements of their teachings... it is then a personal, political or financial organization in religious drag.

 

 

 

Obviously religions founded on war like teachings are a different kettle of fish. Judaism, worship of Mars or other war Gods...

[tulku]

I thought it might be interesting to examine the historical implications of warfare as it relates to ancient religions many consider to be pacifistic in nature. The notion escaped me for the most part until I did some digging and found numerous accounts of warfare being supported by these same religious institution. If it had been a passing notion, one or two incidents, I would've thought that this was just a random occurrence, but what I found instead was a pathology of religion, if not overtly, covertly supporting violence for the sake of their own nation or religion.

 

My examination is meant to be impartial, but at times it's very hard to be impartial when one hears some of the things that have occurred and been sanctioned by the monastic and religious hierarchy. Perhaps starting with the most recent account in modern history would be a good start and to do that we need to go to Sri Lanka where the state, which calls itself a Buddhist nation is committing genocide against the indigenous Tamil minority that has been seeking independence. Atrocities abound, entire towns laid to waste, children and women raped and killed, all sanctioned by the Theravada Buddhists Church that backs the country.

 

Now to be honest, they're not advocating the rape and murder of innocents, but at the same time they're not speaking out against it either, rather they are supporting the regime full well knowing what is happening, all because they fear that the Tamil might gain control over the nation and banish Buddhism. This is something that's occurring in the here and now, yet most people will never hear about it, and Buddhists refuse to address it, yet it is happening, and the war has yet to end, even though concessions could be made to end it, if one side had compassion for the other.

 

If this seems like an isolated incident, it isn't, Shaku Soen, a well known Zen Master and the teacher of D. T. Suzuki, was one of the first to advocate war as a form of Zen training. In Zen Holy War, Josh Baron examines this relationship, perhaps the most chilling quote from the book comes from Soen himself when he says, "I wished to inspire our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them.... that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil."

 

Baron goes on to say that, "From Soen's point of view, since everything was one essence, war and peace were identical. Everything reflected the glory of Buddha, including war. And since the Buddha's main purpose was to subjugate evil, and since the enemy of Japan was inherently evil, war against evil was the essence of Buddhism. "In the present hostilities," Soen wrote, "into which Japan has entered with great reluctance, she pursues no egotistic purpose, but seeks the subjugation of evils hostile to civilization, peace and enlightenment." (Japan's invasion of Russia was entirely self-serving and hardly reluctant.). To Soen, war was " an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment.""

 

Baron uses the research of Brian Victoria for much of his discussion regarding the Zen complicity in the war effort, amongst the most disturbing of Victoria's findings were the comments made by Sawaki Kodo, one of the great Soto Zen patriarchs of this century. Kodo said that he and his comrades "gorged ourselves on killing people." Victoria includes a later quote from 1942 where Kodo wrote, "It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

 

Victoria continues to examine Kodo's explanation, in which Kodo essentially states that if one kills in a state of Zen or no-mind, then that act comes from a state of enlightenment. He wasn't the only one, in fact many of the Zen Masters at the time stated the same thing, and why wouldn't they? If they had not supported the war effort their temples would've most certainly been shut down, the monks sent back to the lay practice or other monasteries that did support the war.

 

The most reprehensible of this support was to come in during what has become known as the Rape of Nanking. During the capture of Nanking on December 13th, 1937, the Japanese raped, killed, and tortured over 350,000 Chinese. It's still considered one of the most brutal acts of war ever perpetrated by man. Nazi officers present during the invasion actually left the battlefield, unable to watch the brutality.

 

The horrors didn't end on one day though, the Japanese continued to kill the Chinese populace indiscriminately, and the Buddhist religious officiated much of it, watching and condoning the actions, even supporting the state held sentiment that the Chinese were lesser human beings, even less so than dogs and cats. To put this in perspective, more people died in Nanking, raped, tortured, and killed, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, all under the auspice of the Buddhist monks and Masters. Afterward they used Chinese children as target practice, there are even accounts of boys being lined up to be used for bayonet practice, and officers beheading Chinese men in order to demonstrate the "proper way to behead a man."

 

I could go on, but I don't think many of us would have the stomach for much more, suffice it to say that it took nearly 50 years before the Zen temples were willing to admit their complicity and also the nature of their acts. Hopefully it's a lesson well learned.

 

Before you say, "well that was just the Zen Buddhists!" It might be wise to look further into the past, back to the 17th century, when we find out exactly how the Gelug-pa sect came to rule under the Fifth Dalai Lama. Derek Maher, in an article, explains that the Fifth Dalai Lama praised the Khoshut Mongol ruler, Gushri Khan, in part because the Khan eliminated and supressed the other Buddhist sects in Tibet, helping his own sect come to power. Although not as brutal as what Japanese did during the first half of the 20th century, it's no less disturbing.

 

I could stop there, but there is much more to address, enough to fill volumes in fact, the Ch' ang Buddhist support and aid of the Maoist government during the Korean War is another modern example, as is the Theravada Buddhist Temples support against the Muslim insurgency in Southern Thailand. The similarities between the two different factions is eerily common, both groups provided lodging for the military, and it wasn't uncommon for the monks to participate in active military duty. To the best of my knowledge the Buddhists in both countries still support these actions to this day, under the auspice of compassion.

 

This shouldn't eliminate other religions from their own complicity, of course, I have chosen to use the Buddhist traditions as an example, because for many of us, Buddhism seems to be completely antithetical to the concepts of war.

 

Taoism has a long and bloody history as well, in fact it had less compulsions about waging war than the Ch'ang Buddhists seemed to have. Both historically supported war, particularly against oppressive rulers, but oftentimes supporting oppressive rulers when it seemed fit.

 

The Hindu, another religion most consider to be peace loving, is not without it's own bloody history, with numerous conflicts arising over the last 2,000 years, many of them quite bloody. Even today it's not uncommon for one to hear of a riot occurring in which the Hindus attack the Muslims or visa versa.

 

I didn't write this to point fingers at any one religion, in fact I left out the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other Eastern Religions, because we are all to familiar as it is with their own bloody histories, rather I wrote this in the attempt to make people aware of the complicity of religion in warfare, how a supposedly righteous and pure ideology can turn evil and sour, if that religion comes under attack by others.

 

We should never forget that religions are abstract concepts, nor that ideas alone are not worth the loss of human life. So long as we value the religion itself over the value of another's life, this will continue. So long as we turn a blind eye to the capacity of man's evil, even under the supervision of the "righteous" we will continue to perpetrate evil acts in the name of compassion.

 

Aaron

 

The Japanese may have raped and killed women and children but at least, they didn't murder monks and destroy over two thousand years of spiritual knowledge like how the Chinese persecuted the Tibetans.

 

Give me a choice between choosing a race who rape and murder innocents and a race who murder monks and destroy spiritual knowledge, i will choose the former anytime because it is the lesser of two evils.

[tulku]

 

if your 'deity' commands you to kill your own kid, I'd say you have a very serious psychological problem.

 

________________

 

 

(and it's even more serious when abraham actually goes along with it) ....

 

If you refuse to follow the commands of your gods, I'd say you have far serious problems than just a mere psychological problem.

 

EDIT: This is the problem with humanity nowadays. They think themselves to be greater than the gods when in reality, we are like ants compared to the gods.

Edited April 3, 2012 by tulku

[Fū Yue]

Give me a choice between choosing a race who rape and murder innocents and a race who murder monks and destroy spiritual knowledge, i will choose the former anytime because it is the lesser of two evils.

 

Why would you betray the spirit itself for a word pointing to the spirit itself?

[tulku]

Most Buddhist abhor violence, yet they also understand that violence is a part of this world. Buddha actually was against violence and encouraged rulers to live in peace with one another. The problem is that there is also a complicity in most Buddhist countries, where the religion can come under attack from the government if it defies their national objective. Historically speaking most Buddhist Temples will either stay out of it or if they are forced, tactfully accept it. Just look at the Dalai Lama's sanctioning of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The Dalai Lama was under intense political pressure to support the act, even though there is nothing to support it in the teachings of Buddha. Violence, after all, begets more violence.

 

This isn't my personal opinion in regards to the assassination, I wasn't opposed to it, I'm just using it at as an example.

 

Aaron

 

There are guardians called nagas who actually warred against demons and devils seeking to destroy the buddhas.

 

If the Buddhas do not have such guardians to actually destroy evil and other obstacles, humanity would not have been lucky enough to receive buddhist teachings.

 

Same principle applies to every religion. Every religion has warlike guardians and protectors and angels who see it as their sacred duty to destroy all devils and demons seeking to corrupt humanity.

 

Violence begets more violence? Are you kidding me?

 

I am not sure if Osama is responsible for anything but I know Hitler is.

 

Give me a chance to obliterate Hitler when he was just a baby and I would do it.

 

In a heartbeat.

[tulku]

Why would you betray the spirit itself for a word pointing to the spirit itself?

 

I don't betray the spirit nor the word pointing to the spirit.

[thelerner]

The Japanese may have raped and killed women and children but at least, they didn't murder monks and destroy over two thousand years of spiritual knowledge like how the Chinese persecuted the Tibetans.

 

Give me a choice between choosing a race who rape and murder innocents and a race who murder monks and destroy spiritual knowledge, i will choose the former anytime because it is the lesser of two evils.

 

 

Ripping events from the history books and pinning them on a whole people is the Birthing Mother of atrocities. The right choice is to blame the individual who murder, rape or ordered it done. To blame a whole culture is to play in the same bloody mud hole.

 

 

"Give me a chance to obliterate Hitler when he was just a baby and I would do it."

 

Willing to murder a baby, very impressive. If you can go back in time, don't kill or rape baby Hitler. I get the feeling History and the Powers That Be, don't work that way. Those with godlike powers had better tread carefully in this world. Acts of destruction are easy; prejudice and hatred are easy.

 

Win or lose I'd rather see a more creative, more loving way to deal with the problem (such as bringing the baby to our time). If it failed I'd wager the plan to murder would have too, but at least you acted in the best aspect of humanity.

Edited April 3, 2012 by thelerner

[tulku]

Ripping events from the history books and pinning them on a whole people is the Birthing Mother of atrocities. The right choice is to blame the individual who murder, rape or ordered it done. To blame a whole culture is to play in the same bloody mud hole.

 

There are many cultures who have warred, pillaged and destroyed in the whole bloody history of mankind.

 

But never has any one culture destroyed so much spiritual knowledge likke the Chinese.

 

The Qin Emperor did it. Mao Tze Dong did it.

 

Not even Hitler or the bloody Japs have the gall to offend the gods.

 

Only the Chinese are bloody arrogant enough to think themselves bigger than the gods.

[thelerner]

Hold, it I got a Chinese person here, He says he's doesn't think he's bigger then the gods. So at least 1 out of 1.1 billion doesn't. I think if we did a poll, you'd find out most Chinese don't and you've set up a straw dog argument. If you want to blame Emperor Quin or Mao, do it, but you shouldn't consider the whole nation culpable. You can just as easily be in awe of there wise scholars, emperors and immense spiritual heritage.

 

I understand the passion, the cultural revolution unleashed horrible things, the worst upon the Chinese themselves, but that was a specific event in thousand of years of history. Sure its after effects echo on. I see things like the occupation of Tibet is not a 'Chinese' thing, its a human thing; seeing another's land and resources and stealing it.

Edited April 3, 2012 by thelerner