Followers

Friday, October 18, 2019

Buddhist Perspective On War and Terrorism




 

Introduction
War and terrorism creates violence in man by loosing the peace. It destroys social unity and creates political problems. The political legacy of man is not without war in the past. Today military age has replace the arrows, sword  dropping equipment of the past. Generally in a war the enemy is divided into to faction and attacked by opponents. One team wins with one loss. But the victory is only physical, they lose spiritually war is a process of anger and resentment that cannot be overcome mentally. It loses social peace and social harmony.
objectives
The main objective of this research is to study the nature of war and terrorism and the  Buddhist attitude to it with reference to the early Buddhist teachings and suttas.
Research problem
The research question is what the Buddhist view of war and terrorism is  and whether the Buddha endorsed it.
Methodology
Data were collected through study of primary and secondary sources and by reference of the library.

Discussion and Conclusion
what is war?
War is an organized, armed, and often prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional, and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and it is defined as a form of political violence. War entails confrontation with weapons, military technology, or equipment used by armed forces who employ military tactics and operational art within the broad categories of military strategy and military logistics. War studies by military theorists have sought to identify the philosophy of war and to reduce it to a military science. Conventional warfare is an attempt to reduce an opponent’s military capability through open battle. Conventional war is declared between existing states in which nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are not used, or they only see limited deployment in support of conventional military goals and maneuvers. Nuclear warfare is warfare in which nuclear weapons are the primary method of coercing the capitulation of the other side, as opposed to the supporting role nuclear weaponry might take in a more conventional war.
What is terrorism.
Terrorism is another of those terms that everyone seems ready to use, but no-one can agree on an exact definition. Even the experts continue to argue about the way the term should be applied, and there are said to be over a hundred different definitions of terrorism, not one of which is universally accepted.
This lack of agreement has very practical consequences: to take just one example, the UN has been unable to adopt a convention against terrorism, despite trying for over 60 years to do so, because its member states cannot agree on how to define the term. The UN General Assembly tends to use the following in its pronouncements on terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[1]

Buddhist perspective on terrorism and war

There is something rather unsettling when one reads of Buddhist justifications of violence. We can not but help thinking that the central ethical precepts of Buddhism, ahimsa, karuna, and metta (non-harm, compassion and loving-kindness) have somehow been lost. But in spite of the initial shock, the justifications we encounter are quite similar to those we find in the other world religions. Why do they jar in the case of Buddhism?
We propose here to consider the possibility of Buddhist justifications of war, and to investigate not how they came about, for that is all too obvious and not specific to Buddhism, but rather why they should not have, which hopefully will explain the particular unease many of us feel in the face of them.
Usually in the war one team wins with one loss. Then another team feels sad. if a opppsite team  beat us In a war  or if some one beat us in a match what should we do.  In Buddhas teachings we find this answer.
“He insulted me, he beat me, robbed me!”
Think this way and hatred never ends.
“He insulted me, he beat me, robbed me!”
Give this up and in you hatred ends.
Not by hate is hate defeated; hate is
Quenched by love. This is eternal law.[2]


In the patama sangama sutta of kosala sanyukta the Buddha made a statement about the conceptions of war hearing the news that the King Kosola was defeated in the battle between King Kosala and King Ajasatta.
‘jayam veram pasawati- dukkham seti parājito
Upasanto sukham seti- hitva jaya par
ājayam’[3]
‘‘Achievement makes people hate. The loser feels sad. But the freedman rises from both victories‘‘
It is the end of the war if man is organized peacefully without war. But in the modern day,  it is evident that man does not have  rest enough to reach that supreme position. Man lives in a very complex society.  Therefore they are very busy. And  also loves to entertain the five organs. That is why they are simply become Bahubāndika. So the Lord Buddha states that engaging with Bahubāndika is make them to war.
If human rights over resources are compromised, war cannot be prevented. The Buddha therefore presents a particular social Buddhist philosophy. The Buddhist social philosophy recommends  great philosophical concepts to prevent the war.  Good resource consumption, good social relations and righteous government etc. are very important for any society.
According to the kalaha vinoda sutta, people cannot prevent the war because they cannot share what they wants. And because of the selfish idea of ​​owning whatever they wants.
‘piyā pāhukā kalaha vivādā’[4]
Not only that, but also at the opening of the Mahaparinibanna Sutta we find king Ajatasattu sending a minister to seek an audience with the Buddha in order inquire about a planned attack on the Vajji princes. Ajatasattu's motivation for seeking advice is not based solely on respect for the Enlightened One, but more because "Tathagatas never speak what is untrue."  The Buddha, in accordance with the moral teaching found in the Maha Sila sections of the Brahmajala and Samannaphala suttas,[5] does not "make predictions about kings going to war; about kings coming back from war; ...; and probabilities of victories and losses of warring kings," but instead inquires of Ananda as to the practices of the Vajji princes, the seven factors of non-decline. Finding that the princes do indeed possess the seven factors of non-decline, the Buddha says that so long as they continue so, they will not decline.
Several points are to be made here. On the one hand, the `prediction' as to how the Vajji will fare does not concern itself with the relative strength of any other state, most significantly that of Ajatasattu. On the other hand neither does it concern the internal material disposition of the state, such as its defense readiness and economic vitality. Rather the factors of non-decline are communication and harmony with each other, and respect for tradition, elders, women, shrines, and arahants. Immediately upon this follows several more sets of "seven factors of non-decline", but these pertain not to a state but to the community of monks, an example of the way in which much of the discussion of war and violence in the Suttas is primarily metaphorical. It is significant that the Buddha's reply to Ajatasattu's minister does not even metaphorically involve violence. The maintenance of the state, as well as the Sangha or the individual monk, is a matter of its own cultivation.
The notion of "being one's own support"[6] can be seen to apply to more than the life of the monk. The necessities of interstate politics, the maintenance of social order, the categorical right to self-defense, all depend on subordinating relations in which the cause of the action (war, punishment, violence) lies outside of the actor.
It is not necessary to respond in kind to threats from the outside, as foolish as that may seem from the position of the political realist. If the Vajji princes were to be concerned with the threat, already they would be suffering in anticipation and uncertainty, on the path to decline. They would have entered upon the same course of action as Ajatasattu and Pasenadi, where even if they succeed in a defensive war, only "spoiling" their enemy so far as necessary for their own security, nonetheless will most likely face the same prospect in the near future, and will not necessarily always be the victor.
What the Cakkavatti Sutta seems to tell us, then, is not that the application of violence is a necessary component of maintaining social order, but rather is the first sign of its disintegration, and leads only to more violence and further disorder. This is in accordance with the understanding of the causality of violence  We must exempt Buddhism from the company of Hinduism and Jainism in allowing a separate standard of conduct for the householder and the king, and correct U Nu's assumption that some violence is necessary for social order with the assertion that quite the opposite is the case.

Conclusion

Early Buddhism, then, did not approve of the use of violence by kings, anymore than by anyone else, but merely accepted it as the fact, and did what was proper to the circumstances. As Chakravarti concludes, even though the Buddha did not propound the theory of the cakkavattin to any actual kings, "the Buddhists ... developed the idea of the cakkavatti dhammiko dhammaraagaa who, by a just exercise of power would play a pivotal role in transforming society," as a counter to the excesses of actual kings.
Thus, the early Buddhism teaches that war is an  meaningless act which is Practiced by fools. And the hate caused by war is endless. It extends far beyond the soul. There is a high likelihood of war in any society. According to the above, it can be said that the tendency of the war can be  reduce by walking in the path of the Buddha has showed. By paying attention to those statements people can make them more peaceful, without harming even to a person who have insulted them, beat  them, robbed them. Hate by hate is never defeated, hate is quenched by love forever. So the Buddhist attitude towards violence, war ,terrorism is



[1] 1994 United Nations Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annex to UN General Assembly resolution 49/60 , "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism", of December 9, 1994
[2]  Dhammapada, K.N. 1 (3-5)
[3] pathamasamgama sutta, S.N. 1, (p. 158)

[4] kalahavivada sutta, S.N, ( p. 272)

[5]  Brahmajala sutta, 23, (Burma p. 13) ; and Samannaphala sutta, 207. (Burma p. 100).

[6] Cakkavatti Sutta, 80

References
Saddhatissa, H. Buddhist ethics : the path to Nirvana. Hammalawa Saddhatissa. London : Wisdom, 1987.
Kalupahana, David J., 1975, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Kalupahana, David J., A path of righteousness: Dhammapada: an introductory essay, together with the Pali text, English translation, and commentary. Lanham MD : University Press of America, 1986.
Web:

0 comments:

Post a Comment