Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!samsung!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: SECBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jack Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Buddhists & the Gulf War
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.005811.533@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 30 Jan 91 00:58:11 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 57
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


As do many Buddhists, I take the Five Precepts daily.  Though this
is sometimes done with less attention than I should like,
there are those times when one or the other of them really stops
my mental traffic.

Over the past few days the precept against killing has raised
many questions for me.

The precepts are presented in several places in the Buddhist scriptures,
but they essentially enjoin the same conduct each time.  In the
Dhammika Sutta of the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha says of the householder:
"Let him not destroy life nor cause others to destroy life, and also
 not approve of others' killing.  Let him refrain from oppressing
 all living beings in the world, whether strong or weak." Sn 394.

While the karmic results of killing or encouraging others in this
conduct may vary depending upon the circumstances, this deed
seems to be considered one that always produces unwholesome karmic
results.

In certain cases a nation may consider it imperative to take
measures which are not compatible with a practice of non-violence.
Theistic religions can define a "just war" as one in the interests
of their god, and it can be so defined and blessed by a clergy
which derives its mandate from this god.  Buddhism, as I understand
it, acknowledges nothing in the nature of a "just war", and the
term itself has long struck me as bordering on an oxymoron.  I have read
that in Sri Lanka the recruitment of Buddhist chaplains for the
army raised opposition, as by holding such positions the sangha
would violate the Vinaya rules, and also place themselves under
the control and in association with the military, which would seem
to violate a fundamental Buddhist position.

With the United States and it's allies pursuing war with Iraq the
subtlies of this precept become more apparent in everyday life.

This raises two types of questions for me.  First, in what ways am
I causing and approving of others killing by continuing through what may
be the performance of very ordinary social and civic actions
Second, in what ways  can (should?) one not just refrain from certain
actions contributing to killing (the Gulf War in this case),
but rather become involved in positive actions which contribute to
the likelihood of non-violence.

I think that one of the great stumbling blocks, which Chogyam
Trungpa among others has pointed out, is that in attempting to act in
a manner which we see as counter to hate and aggression, we often
escalate our activities in such a way that they reflect the same
anger and aggression.  I sense, very unclearly, that the right
conduct in this involves being extremely watchful that whatever
one does not harden into a sort of "monument" to oneself.

I would be very interested in learning what other Buddhists
may feel about this subject in relation to their practice.

Jack Carroll