Buddhism and Violence

I promised a controversial post and well, here it is. It is kind of long only because I really want to try and present both sides for this discussion.

I can not think of anything more controversial in Buddhist circles then the issue of violence. The Buddha and our teachers preach against violence and to promote peace. This stance of non-violence was one of the things that attracted me to the path of the middle way.

However.

Is there EVER a place for violence?
Such as defending yourself or are you to just let people kill you? The other example I have is in defending your country and defeating evil such as in defeating Hitler in World War II. Do you not have a right and obligation to stand up to forces that would threaten to destroy the world and the balance of the middle way that is found in the various forms of democracy in the world?

The current Dalai Lama said in a recent interview with Canadian Broadcast News for example that some violence may be necessary in the short term but that it should be a last resort:

Yes, in particular circumstances, under particular circumstances, yes, it could be justified. However, this is not the full answer for long run.

Hana Gartner: But this is extraordinary. The Dalai Lama said violence under certain circumstances you could see as justified?

Dalai Lama: Possible. Look, First World War, Second World War. I think Second World War, at least, although millions of people killed, suffer, immense, but really I was against war because war is some kind of legalized maximum violence. I'm always against. However, and like Second World War and Korean War, at least to protect the rest of the democratic civilization, and Korea, South Korea protected. As a result, more prosperity and democracy, freedom, these things. So sometimes... But then I think the difficult thing is when violence is started, eventually there's always a danger the situation become out of control, chain reaction, chain violence like Vietnam. All those same motivations, same strategy, same goal, but fail. Therefore, I always believe right from the beginning, must avoid violence.

Hana Gartner: But while you can concede that sometimes it's necessary, there are those in Tibet who believe there is justification that if you do not stand up, if you just are a pacifist, you empower the person who is oppressing you.

Dalai Lama: Individual case? For example, if mad dog coming, almost certain now bite you. Then if you say, non-violence, non-violence and compassion…

Hana Gartner: You get bitten!

Dalai Lama: That's kind of foolish! You have to take use of self-defence. But without harming, without serious harming another, I think that's the way I feel. If someone try to shoot on you, then there is no possibility to run away, then you have to hit back. Then possibly not on head, but leg or something like that. So that's not serious hit back, but more lenient way, more gentle way.

I found an excellent article on this issue by Roger Corless in which he said:

At the moment that the being is our enemy we may have no choice but to kill our former friend, but we will kill with regret and compassion for someone who has, as it were, become temporarily insane and does not recognize us.

However one of the Buddha's sermons says flat out that violence is wrong:

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching.
Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29

The Buddha was quite clear in his renunciation of violence: "Victory creates hatred. Defeat creates suffering. The wise ones desire neither victory nor defeat... Anger creates anger... He who kills will be killed. He who wins will be defeated... Revenge can only be overcome by abandoning revenge... The wise seek neither victory nor defeat."

After waging many wars, Emperor Asoka was so moved by sayings such as these that he converted to Buddhism and became the model for later Buddhist kings. Buddhism retreated from India, China, Vietnam, and other countries rather than involve its believers in armed struggles to preserve itself. Again, this illustrates the strengths and the weaknesses of Buddhism.

**James's Comment:
So, I think that some violence is o.k. when self-defense is in danger but even then you should only go for the kill as the VERY last resort. Instead, shoot or go for the head. Rather, incapacitate the attacker by going for the legs or arms. I also gather from the Dalai Lama's comments that he suggests that violence is necessary when world democracy (or the very roots of Buddhism) is threatened such as during WWI, WWII. I think that "Right Action" sometimes means doing the difficult thing such as defending democracy in WWI and WWII via war. I believe though that war should be the very, VERY last resort and that this war in Iraq is an unjustified war in that regard. However, at the same time I recognize that advocating any violence is a like walking a thin, razor line. Also, hate, retaliation, revenge only continues the cycle of violence. The emphasis on non-violence in Buddhism seems to be at once a great strength and a great weakness at the same time. From the Buddhist point of view, the end result is less important than the way we work with it.

However.

Let me leave you with these words from Vietnamese Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh:

Before the end of the Vietnam War, I asked Venerable Thich Nhah Hanh whether he would rather have peace under a communist regime that would mean the end of Buddhism or the victory of democratic Vietnam with the possibility of Buddhist revival, and he said that it was better to have peace at any price. He told me that preserving Buddhism does not mean that we should sacrifice people's lives in order to safeguard the Buddhist hierarchy, monasteries, or rituals. Even if Buddhism as such were extinguished, when human lives are preserved and when human dignity and freedom are cultivated toward peace and loving kindness, Buddhism can be reborn in the hearts of human beings.

**James: So my question to you is what do we do when faced with the choice of violence or death? Violence or the destruction of this world? Violence of the destruction of Buddhism?

-Peace to us all-