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]
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.
‘‘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.
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
[3] pathamasamgama sutta, S.N. 1,
(p. 158)
[4] kalahavivada sutta, S.N, ( p.
272)
[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