Recently my views on the possibility of a Buddhist rationale for self-defense have been criticized from two directions. On the one hand are those who believe that Buddhist, and Nichiren Buddhists in particular, are obliged to hold a position of absolute non-violence. Then there are those who insist that Nichiren Budhists are not obliged to follow any precept, rule, or principle other than to uphold Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. I would like to respond to these critiques here and also report what I have learned from discussions with other Nichiren Shu ministers.
As a Nichiren Shu minister I would like to begin by stating what I have learned from my sensei about the Nichiren Shu's opposition to war. The Nichiren Shu is organized in Japan with a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch. The legislative branch is called the Shukai and it is the Nichiren Shu equivalent of congress with representatives sent from the different districts. According to my sensei, this congress has issued a statement to the effect that the Nichiren Shu opposes war. However, my sensei told me that it is up to the discretion of the individual minister or member as to whether this categorically rules out the use of force for self-defense or in police work.
I submitted my own reworking of the Western criteria for a legitimate self-defense (the unfortunately named "just war" theory) to the Gendai Shukyo Kinkyujo (Contemporary Religion Research Insitution) which deals with ethical issues for the Nichiren Shu. I submitted this through the NBIC. The response from the Chief Director, Rev. Ito, did not address the specific points of what I had submitted. But here is his response as reported to me by Rev. Akahoshi of the NBIC: "If another country were to attack our homeland, before thinking of using force we should try talking to them. We must use any possible means to avoid conflict. From the Buddhist point of view, one stands against power using non-violent means and civil disobedience such as Gandhi used. One must try all diplomatic means of resolving a conflict."
Unfortunately, this response did not address the issue of what happens when all diplomatic and non-violent means have failed. One is left once again at the discretion of one's own conscience. There is no policy set forth by Nichiren Shu which categorically forbids the use of force in extreme situations. There is a huge gap, for instance, between opposing the British in colonia India, and liberating a concentration camp in Nazi ocupied Europe.
In any case, what Rev. Ito said echoed what I had already sent to him. Especially the following points:
< All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war.>> Now some critics are opposed to any ethical injunctions in Nichiren Buddhism on the grounds that Nichiren taught that we should no longer adhere to the precepts or try to practice the eightfold path or the six perfections. That is certainly one way in which certain gosho passages can be read. But there are many other passages in which Nichiren uphold conventional morality and the workings of cause and effect. Nichiren even advises his followers to follow the Confucian ethics familiar to the people of his day. And when he advised them to resist their rulers or their family in order to follow the Lotus Sutra, he does not tell them that the Lotus Sutra trumps Confucian ethics. Rather, he tells them that the Lotus Sutra fulfills the Confucian ethics because following it is a deeper form of filial piety. The same goes for the precepts and the values and ideals taught in provisional Mahayana Buddhism. The Lotus Sutra does not negate the earlier ideals and values, but fulfills them. One practices the Odaimoku so that one will be empowered to live in accord with those ideals and values as the fruit of one's practice, not so that one can ignore or negate them. So in the Nichiren Shu one does not formally take up the precepts or the six perfections, but one does try to live in accord with the spirit of the Odaimoku, and those earlier teachings are viewed as guidance which elucidates that spirit. But Nichiren Buddhism is not a matter of formalism or legalism - it is up to the individual to live in fidelity to the true spirit of the Lotus Sutra and one does that by practicing the Odaimoku with sincerity, faith, and joy. But because this is the case, it is legitimate for Nichiren Buddhists to draw upon the many ethical teachings and resources available to them to form their own conscience and to attempt to influence those around them in a positive way. This is what Nichiren himself did when he gave ethical guidance and advice to his disciples. You could say that the ethical sphere is outside the ultimate sphere of faith and practice which in Nichiren Buddhism begins and ends with the Odaimoku. And yet the ethical sphere is necessary insofar as we are social beings who must take responsibility for our actions, and the sphere of faith is or should be all-encompassing and so should illuminate the ethical sphere just as it should illuminate the whole of our lives. Other critics maintain the Buddhism itself is a religion that teaches absolute pacifism and they further maintain that the idea that people have a right to use force to defend themselves or maintain the peace is a Christian idea. My response to this is two-fold. On the one hand Buddhism has never advocated that it's non-monastic followers should renounce their duties as soldiers or police, though it has always advocated that it is better to renounce such worldly duties and become a monastic. However, even then, the precepts taught by the historical Buddha stipulated that anyone serving in the armed forces could not become a monk. In other words, the monastic Sangha was not to be a haven for draft dodgers. Nor did the Buddha counsel that any layperson should relinquish their social responsibilities before they had fulfilled their obligations. Nichiren certainly wrote eloquently about the sorrow and tragedy of war, but he never counseled his many samurai followers to lay down their arms in the face of the Mongol invasion. Nor did he prevent or counsel his followers not to use arms to defend themselves or him against attack or ambush. It would be difficult, I believe, to make the case that Nichiren himself would ever have advocated an absolute pacifism though many of his latter day followers like Nichidatsu Fuji have adhered to an absolute pacifism which is admirable and heroic. As for Christianity being the origin of the theory of a right to self-defence, I think that is overlooking that all societies have believed this. It just so happens that it was Christian thinkers like Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas (relying themselves on pagan ethical considerations) who articulated a set of very strict standards regarding what could or could not be regarded as a legitmate self-defence. Admittedly, these are more often observed (if at all) in the breach rather than in the observance and every aggressor has attempted to rationalize or justify their actions. But these rationalizations would happen regardless of whether a strict standard had been set up. In fact, in Sri Lankan history Theravadin monks have frequently argued for war in order to protect the Dharma and the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra likewise contains passages which justify the use of force to protect the Dharma - in both cases these justifications would not meet the strict criteria of the Western theory of "just war." The standard itself was not a rationalization or justification for aggression or the use of force as a first resort. Rather, the standard was an attempt to invalidate such things. In any case, Christianity itself, and it may be unique in this, is one of the few religions where one could say that the founder advocated an absolute pacifism for all followers without distiniction. Jesus taught that one should "resist not evil", and "turn the other cheek", and warned that "those who live by the sword die by the sword." Until Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, Christians usually refused to serve in the armed forces. To this day, groups like the Quakers and the Catholic Workers uphold this heroic and absolute standard. And they are among those who counsel conscientious objectors - something that the Buddha himself never advocated. So the line between absolute pacifism and the right to use force in self-defense or peace keeping is by no means a line between Buddhism and Christianity. I feel it is a line between an absolute heroic idealism, and a more realistic and pragmatic standard of conduct. Ultimately, I favor the heroic pacifism of the Nipponzan Myohoji, the Catholic Workers, the Quakers, and many others. But I do not think that a heroic standard can be demanded of people, nor should it be used as a yardstick to judge Nichiren Buddhists - many of whom serve in the military or the police force. It should go without saying that killing is a bad cause, and to be in a situation where one must resort to it (even as a last resort) is not a good thing. But I believe it should be left up to the conscience of the individual to determine how they will act when the choice is between total non-violence and the use of force to subdue those who are about to kill oneself, one's family, other loved ones, or those whose lives one is sworn to protect. There is no policy which presumes to make this decision for anyone, nor should there be. It is between the conscience of the individual, the unbiased workings of the law of cause and effect, and the liberative power of the Wonderful Dharma. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo, Warning - I do wish to get reasonable feedback and comments on this. Bit because this issue is so contentious and because this is my blog, I reserve the right to cut off the comment section if I feel that what is being posted has crossed the line into disrespectful and/or contentious rhetoric.
Ryuei
The very first of the major precepts given by the Buddha to laypeople is to not kill or harm other beings. One of the four offenses for which a monk can be permanently expelled from the Sangha (the monastic Sangha that is) is to kill another human being (a prohibition which includes participating in or encouraging abortion, suicide, or euthanasia). Monks are also prohibited from being present on battlefields or from travelling with armies. I speak only of the monks here because the nuns have a different set of precepts - though I know that the prohibition against killing is also one of the eight offences for which a nun can be permanent expelled.
On the other hand, the Buddha had several kings, princes, generals, and members of the warrior caste who were considered lay-followers and had taken refuge. The Buddha never forbid them from fulfilling the duties of their positions, and it is known that several of them did wage wars of self-defence during the life-time of the Buddha and did execute criminals. It is true also that the Buddha did on at least one occasion save a the serial-killer Angulimala from being apprehended and executed on the grounds that he had become an arhat. And on several occasions the Buddha prevented the Shakyas and another clan from going to war. But he did not stop every occasion of capital punishment and war. And on many occasions as the kings excused themselves to leave the presence of the Buddha he would say to them: "Now is the time to do as you see fit." I take this to mean that the Buddha did not presume to tell these kings, generals and princes what to do - even though they were lay followers. Rather, he taught them the Dharma and then trusted them to follow their own good judgement for better or worse.
So what I am building to is this. The first precept would seem to prohibit war or the use of deadly force in any situation. NBIC's publication "Awakening the Lotus" states:
The most important goal of any belief is the improvement of self and of the world in general. As a meaningful Buddhist group, Nichiren Shu and its practitioners must strive for the peace, happiness, and enlightenment of ever living thing. Human life and the environment must be cherished and protected, and society must be encouraged toward peace and happiness. Therefore, the Nichiren Shu firmly holds the convictions of opposition to all war, prohibition of nuclear arms, and justice and peace in society. Besides promoting these values in society, we believe that by living as the Buddha taught us in the Lotus Sutra and by following the teachings of Nichiren Shonin, we can manifest these values naturally. We also spread this peace and happiness through the world by teaching others to follow the Buddha's teachings. " (p. 20)
I think it should go without saying that war is a bad thing, no matter what the reasons are. By extension, police actions wherein the UN or some group of nations invades another to restore the peace or prevent genocide or some other grave injustice are also occasions in which violence has been resorted to out of desperation and so this too is a tragic occasion.
In Asia, Buddhism never had power or responsibility over any state (except perhaps briefly under King Ashoka and even then he did not establish Buddhism as a state religion). In fact, Buddhism was more often than not subsumed into the beauracracy and kept strictly under control. Buddhist peace activism is a product of the democracies of the 20th century. The point, however, is that Buddhism was never in a position to tell any government that it could not wage war, and if waged how to conduct it in a way that would not create more damage than the wrongs the war was supposedly being fought to redress.
In the West, however, the European nations for a long time were under the domination, to varying degrees, of the Church. This did not stop European nobles from waging war on each other, and of course the teachings of Jesus did not prevent Church leaders themselves from calling for crusades. In the face of all this, scholars and theologians drawing upon the resources of Western philosophy, ethics, critical thinking and respect for the conscience and responsibility of the individual evolved, for better or worse, the doctrine of the "just war." The "just war" doctrine is interesting to me because it was, perhaps I could say is, an attempt by the West to find a balance between the ethical imperative to avoid war and the right to defend oneself, one's family and community, and those for whom one is responsible (so a fuedal lord was responsible for protecting the lives of his serfs and vassals, today a policeman is responsible for the lives of the innocent people in his or her jurisdiction, the president is responsible for the lives of his or her nation).
In talking to the NBIC just this morning, I learned that while the Nichiren Shu definately opposes war (and really is there anyone who would try to argue that war is a good thing?), it is unclear as to whether this policy excludes legitimate self-defense. I was told that at the moment no one should say that there is an official policy which would exclude legitimate self-defense. Hopefully a clearer answer will come from Japan, and I currently await that and will share it when it is forthcoming.
In the meantime, I would like to present my own thoughts on the right of a nation to self-defense and to redress injustices that are so grave that war becomes a lesser evil. This should not be called a "just war" doctrine so much as "the proper way to end a war if force must be met with force" doctrine. Anyway, here is my unerstanding of this doctrine (the articulation of which I have borrowed and adapted from another source which I will not reveal due to the prejudices against that source - I wish it to stand or fall on its own merits and not its associations):
The first precept forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, Buddhists should witness in their daily practices and in their actions, as responsible citizens, to the possibilities of peace and to liberation from the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance which lead to war.
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.
Buddhism asserts universal working of the law of cause and effect - including during armed conflict. Even if one must use force to defend oneself or others, this does not mean that violence suddenly becomes a good cause or that violence, coercion, and hatred will not sow karmic seeds which must at some point come to fruition. Bearing this in mind, combatants should restrain themselves as much as possible and not rationalize their actions.
Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against the Buddha-nature of all sentient beings, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as people contain within them all then worlds including the lower realms, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until the attainment of buddhahood; but insofar as they can overcme the defilements by cultivating the eightfold path and the six perfections in the true spirit of the Wonderful Dharma, violence itself will be vanquished and these words of the Lotus Sutra will be realized: "In reality this world of mine is peaceful It is filled with gods and humans. The gardens, forests, and stately buildings are adorned with various treasures. The jewelled trees have many flowers and fruits. The living beings are enjoying themselves and the gods are beating heavnly drums, making various kinds of music, and raining mandarava flowers on the great multitude and me."
So this, to me, is a good articulation of how to prevent wars from arising (by working for justice before a conflict arises) and if one must defend oneself if attcked by an aggressor what constitutes a legitimate self-defense so as to end the conflict without creating even worse injustices. Interestingly, this "doctrine for ending wars" would illegitimize even the USA's war against Japan in the 1940's because it could be argued that while we were not the initial aggressor, we used means like the fire-bombing of civilians and ultimately the atomic bombs which were worse evils than those perpetrated against us. So the standards of this doctrine are so strict, that it almost automatically rules out all modern warfare. And well it should, because the escalation of modern warfare leads to the dead end of full scale nuclear war or at the very least the irreperable destruction of the environment by other forms of biological, nuclear or chemical warfare. The life of every being on the planet is now at stake due to the manner in which modern conflicts are faught.
So as I write this, I am unaware of any official policy which would prohibit Nichiren Shu Buddhists from acting to defend themselves if attacked. I feel that it is legitimate to use force of arms to defend oneself, one's family, and one's community. Nichiren certainly didn't tell his disciples not to fight back when attacked at Komatsubara and it is known that his followers kept weapons for self-defence. Nichiren also never counselled any of his samurai followers to lay down their arms or not fulfill their duties. So there is no precedent in Nichiren's teachings for an absolute pacifism. I would argue quite the opposite in fact. But it is also true that Nichiren in principle upheld the first precept against killing and wrote about it quite eloquently on occasion. So it would seem that Nichiren Buddhists must also struggle with this question that the West has struggled with for some time - how to reconcile the right to self-defence with the moral imperative not to kill or harm others? I think this is a legitimate question which needs to be asked and which should not be avoided or shucked off with absolutist authoritarian policies (or even less the claim that there are such policies when such may not exist). This is a matter of conscience and it is the role of Buddhism to provide the tools for the formation of that conscience and the awareness of the law of cause and effect so that those who wish to follow the Buddha's teaching may "do as they see fit" in the full light of the Dharma.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei