Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00247)

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Dear Larry:

Buddhism & WAR

As I understand it “Budhism” is NOT a religion or a
belief-system -- with the paraphernalia of rites, rituals
dogmas, etc. It has remained free of those -- however it has
seen many aspects of study recommended which have become separate
schools.

Col. Olcott’s: “Buddhist CATECHISM” makes the situation plain.


2 WAR

When all is said and done, it is always the individual who opts
for “war” and any personal participation therein. Even if one
says that “my government” requires I do such and such, we have
here, and elsewhere, a history of “conscientious objection” --
even unto death.

No, we cannot blame others or circumstances for our own weakness
and inability to develop a strong, independent and benevolent
WILL.

Either the basis in ONE SPIRIT of brotherhood is a fact or it is
not. It may be a dream for some, but for some it is a stern
reality.

Every one needs to analyse the motives which might be used by
those who instigate and support wars, killing others, even if it
is called “capital punishment,” it is an illogical retaliation
as the Spiritual person can never be killed. If we participate
and support death-dealing we attract to ourselves a most
pernicious Karma.

Best wishes,

Dallas


Here are some more references to consider:

-------------------------

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS -- OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, p 117

Q. In the case of a nation that engages in war, thus encouraging
the lower instincts, would it not draw into incarnation lower
egos ?

A. In the case of each ego in a body, the results will depend
upon the motive which actuated him in engaging in war or in any
other direction. A nation is composed of individual units, the
nature of the action in any given case depending upon the ruling
motive of the individual. If the motives of the units engaged in
war were for justice and freedom, regardless of the necessary
war-like acts, then when the objects were obtained and peace
resumed, those units would still be actuated by the same motives
and would draw egos of like nature. The condition of war may
equally provide greater opportunities for self-sacrificing
righteous action, and for selfish license and debasement; which
it shall be depends upon the nature and choice of the unit. A
nation has no existence apart from the units which compose it. A
selfish peace will result in greater per versions than any number
of wars waged for righteous purposes; selfishness lies at the
root of all sin, sorrow and suffering.


------------------------------
p. 131

Q. Will those who are killed in this war [1914-1918] follow the
line of anger and battle when they incarnate again?

A. “Every human being has a definite character different from
every other human being”, and this is true whether in war or
peace. As the character and tendencies are in peace, so they will
be in war, for both peace and war are conditions and (do not in
themselves change character. The question is, “Does war of
necessity change an individual’s character ?“ There is no reason
to think so. One of good character and tendencies would be likely
to have these strengthened by the trials and self-sacrifice
entailed by the conditions of war; in another in whom character
and tendency were not good, the same conditions might afford
opportunity for intensification of evil tendencies. It is all a
question of the individual character and motive and the lessons
learned, that form the basis for future incarnations.


Q. Could a savior bring Russia out of the chaos in which she now
is? [1916-18]

A. The chaotic conditions of Russia are an extreme example of the
world-wide conditions; in no case is it possible to change such
conditions save by a change of mind on the part of the people
involved. A divine incarnation could do nothing unless the people
would be willing to follow the lines such an one laid down. It is
apparent that even in our own free country conditions are
approaching a situation not so very far removed from that of
Russia, for we are beginning to experience the results of selfish
class interest, the sole basis of which is money and the power
that it gives its possessors. Those who have, desire to hold and
increase possessions; those who have not, would take from the
present possessors and become in their turn the possessors of the
future; in both cases the rank principle of personal selfishness
prevails; there is nothing to choose between them.


Q. Surely the intelligence of our people will prevent any such
catastrophe as that which has befallen Russia?

A. Intelligence, based upon high principles and true knowledge
cannot fail to make for justice and right living, but
intelligence founded upon personal selfishness can go to any
lengths in the way of destruction. Ignorance and selfishness have
brought Russia to her present pass. Intelligence and selfishness
can do much worse. The question really is, “Upon what is the
intelligence founded ?“ Is it a material, a moral, or a spiritual
conception? It is very evident that the prevailing idea among
Western peoples is material in conception and practice; the more
intelligence used along this line the more certain, rapid and
destructive the results.

----------------------------------

p. 136

Q. Could a definition of Intelligent Patriotism be given?

A. The question is one of Intelligence as applied to patriotism.
A very ignorant man may have a strong patriotic feeling which may
be aroused to inconsiderate action by himself or through the
incitement of others. A more intelligent man would have a wider
range of perception and action and yet concur in national
sentiment and action against other nations with what he as an
individual would consider wrong as against another individual;
both of these cases are basically wrong. A truly intelligent
patriotism would consider the individual as an integral part of
the nation to which he belonged; the nation as an integral part
of the assemblage of nations which constitute humanity as a
whole. As every individual is born into a physical body through
parents of some race or nation, and thus into the world of men,
the karma of each such birth indicates the opportunity of one so
born to eradicate in himself the defects of the family through
which he came, and through the family the defects of the nation,
for national defects are the sum total of all the individuals
composing it, and the eradication of these defects begins and
ends with the individual. Intelligent patriotism would therefore
consist in doing our whole duty in that station where our karma
has placed us, to our family, and to humanity as being made up of
individuals, families and nations, while recognizing all as being
the same in kind and differing only in degree. If our family
duties are well and wisely per formed, our duties to tile nation
and to humanity would to a great extent take care of themselves.
By “family duties” and “national duties” is not meant false
attachments to family or nation as a means of pride,
pleasure—hunting or sensuality, but cultivating and elevating the
higher sentiments and emotions of ourselves and of our family and
utilizing them for the performance of our duty to tile nation and
humanity in general.


Q. It seems to be a hopeless task?

A. It seems hopeless because individuals will not apply the
remedy in themselves; we would like to wait until the race has
improved and then we would fail into line with it, but never has
a race or people improved without strong and continued efforts by
individuals who have seen a better way and exemplify and impart
it. It was said of old that “a little leaven soon leaveneth the
whole lump;” those who have the “leaven” must first apply it in
themselves before it can begin to work in others.

---------------------------------


FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER p. 148


Keep the attitude “I am doing nothing” before you; it will serve
to lessen the strain that makes you tired. Take the position that
everything is going to be for the best, and that your part is to
perform whatever conies before you to do. It then becomes the
performance of duty, and should arouse no more strain than
routine work. And build no castles in the air: they cause only
fear of their destruction, and in themselves are useless. Take
what Karma brings you and make good use of it. Karma will bring
to us what belongs, so there can be no cause for worrying over
any future. There is need only that we hold all our powers in
readiness to make good use of what is brought to us, and this is
best done by a quiet, calm, confident performance of what we are
able to do, day by day, from day to day. …


Yes, it is war; but not against persons. War for the Truth— the
eternal ideas, the eternal thought in the Eternal Mind; war
against error, cant and hypocrisy. When the Eternal Verities are
presented to the world, they are always presented through
persons. Some worship or lean on the persons; others curse,
defame or belittle them; none of these look at what is brought
forward and handed on. So, too, when error is pointed out, it has
to be designated and names used to specify; again, the
thoughtless see an at tack upon persons. In an age of
“personality,” the ordinary mind cannot see beyond it, unless
care is taken on each occasion to explain it. The war is to help
“personalities” to become “living souls.” It is the
Mahabbarata—the Holy War. Ideas are ideas by whomever written or
expressed; so, they can flow through anyone who is in the right
condition. We find Theosophical ideas in every direction, in all
classes of thought, speech, and writing; pieces here and there
are as good as any that Theosophy gives, but there is no
synthesis. Theosophy is synthetic and spells unity in diversity,
the diversity being only apparent, not real. “Meanwhile the world
of real Occultists smiles silently, and goes on with its
laborious process of sifting out the living germs from the masses
of men. For occultists must be found and fostered and prepared
for coming ages when power will be needed and pretensions go for
naught.”

When we consider—as we must—that our individual lives stretch
back for untold ages, and have an illimitable future, and that
the present bodily existence is but one small aspect of that
great continuous Being, we rise above the temporary, while acting
in it, and, seeing more of the right proportions and
relativities, are less involved or troubled by “what may come to
pass.” This of itself is much to have gained; it gives the
steadiness of the warrior in the fight. “Forget not this lesson,
the spiritual man is in this world to get rid of defects. His
external life is for this only, hence we are all seen at a
disadvantage.” Looking at life from this point of view,
everything that comes is an opportunity to be taken ad vantage of
by that “spiritual man,” and in everything we find that “glorious
unsought fight that only fortune’s favored soldiers may obtain.”

You will remember what W. Q. J. wrote: “None of us, and
especially those who have heard of the Path, or of Occultism, or
of the Masters, can say with confidence that he is not already
one who has passed through some initiations, with knowledge of
them. We may already be initiated into some higher degree than
our present attainment would suggest, and are undergoing a new
trial unknown to ourselves. It is better to consider that we are,
being sure to eliminate all pride of that unknown advance we have
made.” We may all take comfort and encouragement from what is
there said, for it may be especially true of those who are fired
with zeal for Master’s work. Well, I will close now; grieve not,
fear not, but cut all doubts with the sword of knowledge.

--------------------------

FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER p. 306-8


Now that the most frightful and destructive war known to the
annals of history is over, the questions that arise in every
thinker’s mind are: What has been learned from the war? Has there
been any lesson learned? Do we think for a single moment that the
end of the war has brought an end to our troubles? Do we not see
the clouds gathering in the skies of humanity?

Revelations of every kind are spread before us as panaceas. On
the part of some there is evidence of a desire to bring people to
“a moral sense”—a sense which they think resides in the Christian
religion. So, they are trying to effect an amalgamation of the
churches, imagining that to be the remedy for preventing wars and
causing men to act more humanely towards each other. But the
moral sense existed in times before the Christian religion was
ever thought of, in other religions; in fact, the basis of all
religions is morality. How comes it, if Christianity is to be the
remedy, that after its being the basis of thought and action for
nearly two thousand years, such a struggle has gone on among
Christian nations? Does Christianity give any promise whatever of
what ought to be? Would there be any benefit whatever in
returning to Christianity, the whole history of which has been
one of intolerance and persecution? If the Christian church had
the power today, would it be any less dogmatic or intolerant than
it was in the days of the Spanish Inquisition?

There is no hope in the direction of the church, because, in the
first place, the people will have none of it. It has not
satisfied their minds; it has not answered their questions.
Instead of the knowledge they asked for, it has: given them only
hope or fear. The church has lost its hold upon the people—for
the great majority are not adherents of any Christian church—be
cause of its poverty of idea, because of its dogmas and creeds.
People have tried out the ideas and found them wanting. Nothing
else will do but that which appeals to their sense of judgment
and to their spiritual perception.

Others have placed their faith in a league of nations. Yet, they
begin to see that though the ideal is beautiful, it does not
prove out in practice. The members of the league have each
desired to take all they could, and give as little as they could.
The same spirit exists between nations now, after the settlement
of peace, as existed during the conflict; the same nations are
just as grasping and just as selfish as they were before the war.
In this country, too, our public men still voice the particular
interests of this particular nation as against all others. A
league of nations could only fulfill its purpose by a common aim
and by a like ideal. Such do not obtain. The nations are not
alike. None of them have high ideals—not even our own nation,
which should have the greatest ideal of humanity and of nature.
In stead, our ideal is one common idea—of trading, of gaining
dollars or possessions, of getting advantage and prestige over
other nations. Such an ideal will never give us peace, will never
bring happiness, content, nor right progress, and there will
always be struggle until we change that ideal. A league of
nations among similar selfish nations can only bring what
self-interest always brings—disasters of some kind. The seeds of
war are in it.

Where shall we find the true foundation for a changed
civilization that all men and women can see and stand on? It is
not philosophies nor religions nor political panaceas that are
needed; but Knowledge, and a wider scope of vision than the
vicissitudes of one short physical life. The knowledge that is
greater than all the forms of religion ever invented is the
knowledge of the very nature of man himself, for himself and in
him self. For we are not here as things apart; we are here
because of one great sustaining Cause—infinite and omnipresent,
not separate from us, nor from any other being. It is the same in
all beings above the human and in all beings below the human—the
very root of our natures, the very man himself. It is the Source
of all powers and of all actions, whether good or evil. Then,
everything that is done by beings affects all beings, and all
that is has been caused by beings, each one affected according to
its share in the cause. What the past has been, we are
experiencing now—our lives now being but repetitions of lives
that preceded them. What the future will be, we are making
now—the lives to come depending entirely on the choice and
direction of our thoughts and actions now.

The war of this or any time is the result of the warring spirit,
of the selfishness of mankind. It is the result of the failure to
understand the great purpose of life, the nature of our minds,
the full power of attainment within each being, the one Law of
absolute justice inherent in all beings, the One Deity behind and
in all, the one Goal for every Pilgrim, however the path varies.
As soon as men are brought to the perception that every one reaps
exactly what he sows, no one will do harm to any other being;
there will then be no war. There will be no such misery as now
exists; for to realize our own responsibility to all others and
to act in accordance, is to have become unselfish, and to have
done away with the prime cause of sin, sorrow and suffering.

--------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Tatoorachael
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:34 AM
To:
Subject: War and Buddhism

Dear friends,

This has been one of our best discussions thus far. Glad I gave
into by intuitive feelings and allowed it to proceed in spite of
my logic screaming "don't go there. And of course a gentle nudge
from Leon whose advise I greatly respect. We seem to be in the
thick of it , with new material coming to light by the hour, and
while I'm looking forward to spring and my contracting business
picking up, there's a part of me that wishes I could just do this
full time and cherishes these days when I can spend so much time
with the list.

This discussion could go on for some time. But every now and then
the discussion itself generates another topic, and while I don't
want to detract from what is being discussed, I don't want to
lose this thread either.

It seems that Buddhism or rather statements by Buddhists are
being used to both justify military action or at least violence
at times and also herald the cause of peace.

Observations:

1-It has often been postulated that the Eastern way is more
spiritual than the Western. Yet from a historical perspective it
doesn't seem that Buddhism has really done much more for the
cause of peace in the world than has Christianity.

2-Is the problem that Buddhism is just one more religion? Many
Theosophists (including HPB) have held Buddhism in a special
place in their hearts. Yet if it were that special, then why have
Theosophy at all? Why not just be Buddhists? Obviously Buddhism
does not have all the answers, which is why the Masters led HPB,
et al. found the Theosophical Society and for HPB to author the
works she did.

Either discuss this now or table it for later, but lets not
forget the point.

Larry ---



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]