4 ms·

The core argument of the article is not that Buddhism was either a unique spur to warfare or the specific source of obedience. The article is about how Zen has

by vsef 7y ago

The core argument of the article is not that Buddhism was either a unique spur to warfare or the specific source of obedience. The article is about how Zen has at various historical moments, despite core anti-violence Buddhist beliefs, been used to justify and excuse violent acts, or even be directly referenced in learning martial killing arts. Then the question is: How has a deeply anti-violence religion found pro-war or pro-violence logic when in those contexts. The author looks for explanations of this contradiction in the Taoist elements of Zen. The article references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War, it is factual that (some) Zen leaders supported the imperial holy war in WWII. Enough that some contemporary leaders have issued apologies. I think the question is more similar to: Christianity has explicitly stated principles of non-violence and against killing, yet has also been used at historical moments to justify holy war, during WWII did not prevent (some) German churches from aligning with Nazism and violent anti-Semitism, etc. What are the historical philosophical strands in Christianity that have allowed it (sometimes) to be used to justify acts that would seem to be in direct contradiction to its core.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
The core argument of the article is not that Buddhism was either a unique spur to warfare or the specific source of obedience. It does try to argue that, over and over. The article is about how Zen has at various historical moments, despite core anti-violence Buddhist beliefs, been used to justify and excuse violent acts, or even be directly referenced in learning martial killing arts. Then the question is: How has a deeply anti-violence religion found pro-war or pro-violence logic when in those contexts. The author looks for explanations of this contradiction in the Taoist elements of Zen. Buddhism is not a deeply anti-violence religion -- that is a complete misrepresentation on the part of the author. The reason is, yes, to be found in the Taoist elements -- in that, the author is correct. I think the question is more similar to: Christianity has explicitly stated principles of non-violence and against killing, yet has also been used at historical moments to justify holy war, during WWII did not prevent (some) German churches from aligning with Nazism and violent anti-Semitism, etc. What are the historical philosophical strands in Christianity that have allowed it (sometimes) to be used to justify acts that would seem to be in direct contradiction to its core. This is a great parallel -- it is a similar argument. It is similarly misguided. No religion that is non-violent would have survived for very long; but neither would a religion have survived for very long if it was much inclined to violence. From a marketing standpoint, the non-violent parts sell better, so people talk about those. The violent parts are kept closer to the chest. Sometimes they get out of hand. If we accept for the sake of argument that a religion offers a perfect and complete teaching, it doesn't mean people can't mishandle it from time to time. A religion and its handling are indissoluble. Sometimes, this aggregate is in the wrong. We should try to learn from this and do better, which is to say: we should add to the historical strands, not subtract from them. This is the essence of religion.

by vsef 7y ago

solidsnack9000 7y ago

The core argument of the article is not that Buddhism was either a unique spur to warfare or the specific source of obedience. It does try to argue that, over and over. The article is about how Zen has at various historical moments, despite core anti-violence Buddhist beliefs, been used to justify and excuse violent acts, or even be directly referenced in learning martial killing arts. Then the question is: How has a deeply anti-violence religion found pro-war or pro-violence logic when in those contexts. The author looks for explanations of this contradiction in the Taoist elements of Zen. Buddhism is not a deeply anti-violence religion -- that is a complete misrepresentation on the part of the author. The reason is, yes, to be found in the Taoist elements -- in that, the author is correct. I think the question is more similar to: Christianity has explicitly stated principles of non-violence and against killing, yet has also been used at historical moments to justify holy war, during WWII did not prevent (some) German churches from aligning with Nazism and violent anti-Semitism, etc. What are the historical philosophical strands in Christianity that have allowed it (sometimes) to be used to justify acts that would seem to be in direct contradiction to its core. This is a great parallel -- it is a similar argument. It is similarly misguided. No religion that is non-violent would have survived for very long; but neither would a religion have survived for very long if it was much inclined to violence. From a marketing standpoint, the non-violent parts sell better, so people talk about those. The violent parts are kept closer to the chest. Sometimes they get out of hand. If we accept for the sake of argument that a religion offers a perfect and complete teaching, it doesn't mean people can't mishandle it from time to time. A religion and its handling are indissoluble. Sometimes, this aggregate is in the wrong. We should try to learn from this and do better, which is to say: we should add to the historical strands, not subtract from them. This is the essence of religion.