Why the Buddhist Peace Fellowship is Wrong

[Xue Sheng]

All rational people abhor violence. Life is about dealing with reality, however, and that reality is sometimes unpleasant.

I have been reading along with this post, just trying to stay out of it.

And this is making me a bit nervous, but I think I have some level of agreement here

The price of freedom is constant vigil pops in to my noggin after reading the above post.

 

[Monadnock]

I have been reading along with this post, just trying to stay out of it.

And this is making me a bit nervous, but I think I have some level of agreement here

The price of freedom is constant vigil pops in to my noggin after reading the above post.

Yup. War is ugly, and so is suicide. Sounds like the hippie peace and love crowd have taken too many bong hits.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yup. War is ugly, and so is suicide. Sounds like the hippie peace and love crowd have taken too many bong hits.

But if a pacifist wants to be a pacifist in the USA it is his/her right to do so. I do not necessarily agree with them, nor do I fear them.

For crying out loud their pacifists what are they going to do....All kidding aside.

Do I agree with what they are saying? ...no.

Do I think they are evil?...no

If some one comes after me am I going to sit back and let them beat me? ...highly unlikely

Am I a pacifist...I know many that would be rolling on the ground at the mear mention of my name and pacifism in the same sentence…

But we are in America…or at least I am…I am not sure where all of the people posting hear are from.

In America there is freedom of speech and that is why they wrote, published and distributed the book.

It is also why Phil has the right to do the same to rebut, respond to, disagree or agrees with what ever anyone else says.

 

[Chris Thompson]

What about Katsu Kaishu? An expert swordsman of the Meiji era, he kept his sword tied so tightly into his scabbard that he couldn't draw it even in self-defense. Despite which, he survived numerous assassination attempts and saw the triumph of his goals and policies while most of those who had tried so often to kill him only ended up dead in the street with their swords in their hands. Most pacifists are ineffective- but so is most violence. For the rare, effective pacifist like Kaishu or Gandhi, I have the highest admiration.

 

[Phil Elmore]

But if a pacifist wants to be a pacifist in the USA it is his/her right to do so.

It certainly is. It is thanks to those who are willing to use force when necessary that such a person can live and prosper under their aegis.

 

[Don Roley]

Phil, I don't think anybody who is reasonable would try to argue that we should not defend ourselves when necessary, including defending our loved ones, and our Nation as well.

But there are some people that think that any violence is wrong. You may respect those that think agressive violence is wrong and I could understand. But some of the examples Phil gave were of people who thought that criminals should not be punished since they will die someday anyways.

There needs to be a distinguishing word for this kind of situation. Kind of like the difference between vegitarians and vegans. One resembles the other, but one is quite a bit more strict and the thinking is taken to more of an extreme.

 

[elder999]

...... some of the examples Phil gave were of people who thought that criminals should not be punished since they will die someday anyways.

Not so sure that that's what they meant-I think it was just an anti-death penalty thing. I don't think they necessarily ahve any problem with life imprisonment.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Actually, the argument they were making was for not taking action against those who wrong us. The argument was instead to divorce ourselves from 'attachment' so that when people assault us we just don't feel badly about it.

DeDonato quotes Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, whom she says opined that there is "no reason to kill our ordinary enemies" because "death will come to them naturally anyway." Gyatso asserts, and DeDonato agrees, that we should strive instead to destroy "the delusions that are the cause of all suffering." Buddhism holds at its core, you see, the notion that attachment – to the world, to our possessions, to notions about our physical health, to other people – leads to suffering and that all life is, in fact, suffering. To achieve Buddhist enlightenment is to free yourself from such attachments and thus to free yourself from suffering.

 

[shesulsa]

This is the classic disparity of the manifested, tangible, clear social need versus spiritual idealism and enlightenment.

To chastise people for struggling for the spiritual ideal is just as non-productive as it is for them to persecute fulfillment of societal need.

We see this manifest in arguments on abortion, gay marriage, spiritual idealism in society, capital punishment, corporal punishment, separation of church and state, oh the list is too long.

Reconciling spirituality in one's own deeds and vice-versa is a personal matter - the judgement of others is forbidden in the Bible and discouraged in other sacred writings. To be a mortal and proclaim another entity (regardless of size, number or intent) as evil is destructive to one's own spirit ... that is to say unless one doesn't believe one has a spirit in which case they are already destroyed from the perspective of a spiritualist.

And if one isn't a spiritual person, then good and evil can't truly exist, right? only behavior that is legal or illegal because good and evil are adjectives of spiritual nature as are the terms moral and immoral.

For peace-loving and peace-seeking people to be persecuted for striving towards their spiritual ideal is ... well ... heh ... classic and unsurprising, just as it is the other way 'round.

:yinyang:

 

[Phil Elmore]

Struggling toward a spiritual idea that is self-destructive isn't a noble cause, in my opinion.