That question appeared on my social network feed today, in light of recent clashes with White Supremacists. The question is really better stated as ‘does the Buddhist tenant of non-violence prevent action in the face of violence’. My answer is that it depends on which Buddhist you are talking to. There is a Buddhist Philosophy, which I believe mostly stems from the direct teachings of Gautama Buddha, and then there is the Buddhist religion which formed from several Buddhist institutions long after the Buddha’s death.
The leader of the Buddhist religion today is the 14th Dalai Lama – Lhamo Dondrub. And he has made it clear, that though he and his followers have been violently opposed, he will not respond in kind. Even though tens of thousands of monks and nuns have been murdered, temples raised to the ground, and he has been driven from his homeland, and the people there that looked to him for protection, he seeks a non-violent resolution. And I totally agree. But this is where our viewpoints may diverge.
I don’t think action, even forceful action, is necessarily violent, or unjustified. I don’t know if you have followed the history of the famous Shaolin Monastery, but they train all of their monks in how to be lethal killing machines, and I have no doubt that they have utilized those skills in the past, and may continue to do so in the present and future, as the need arises. So, how do some of the most lethal assassins in the world come from a Buddhist monastery?
In the history that I’ve learned (your mileage may vary), at one point in time (or many) China cracked down on the monasteries, because of their vast and desirable land holdings. Many wealthy individuals gifted their land holdings to the monasteries upon their deaths to ensure a beneficial rebirth in the next life. As the influence of the monasteries increased the State began to send troops to crush the temples and repossess the land. The monasteries fought back. And the monasteries won, because their fighters were not afraid of death, and their attackers could not shake them.
They totally un-nerved the soldiers sent to crush them. In fact, they were enlisted to train the soldiers how to be better warriors. And eventually, a balance was achieved. So, by their actions, the monks achieved their objective.
At another moment in history, around 842, Tibet was being ruled by a Tyrant King Langdarma. Langdarma was bent on destroying the Buddhist faith in Tibet. He had murdered monks and nuns, destroyed monasteries and outlawed Buddhist practices to the detriment of millions of local inhabitants. There are a few versions told of what happened next, but the one that I like told of an accomplished monk who stepped forward and joined a royal dance troupe. The troupe was called to perform for the King and the monk was ready. He secreted a bow (I’m assuming a cross-bow) and arrows up one sleeve of his robe, and during the penultimate dance, loosened his arrows to kill the King, thereby restoring balance and order to the Kingdom.
Many years prior to that, during the lifetime of Padmasambhava, he was arrested for dropping a boulder off of a cliff and crushing a man. His defense was that the man had acted against him in a prior lifetime, and had killed him. His action in killing the man was actually a form of grace, in that it nullified the man’s bad past karma, and would allow him to achieve a higher rebirth in his next life. The courts agreed and freed him.
So, this begs the question – is violence acceptable in the face of violence? My answer is still no. However, if you rephrase the question as – is action acceptable in the face of violence? My answer would be ‘hell yes!’ And this is where me and the Dalai Lama disagree.
I watched the movie Kundun which purports to tell the life of the young Dalai Lama, and in this movie (which may not be historically accurate) there is a scene where the young (maybe 14 years old) Dalai Lama is summoned to a meeting with Mao Zedong. In the meeting, they are alone, and Mao manages to successfully intimidate the young Dalai Lama, who then arranges to flee Tibet.
In that moment, while watching this film, I flashed to the scene of the monk killing the Tyrant King Langdarma, who was no worse, nor less so than Chairman Mao. And it made me wonder if Lhamo Dondrub missed his chance. If that encounter really occurred, and Lhamo Dondrub had killed Mao, how would the future of Tibet have changed?
Mao killed tens of thousands of people (maybe millions?), caused cultural sterilization, destroyed religions and cultures and historical artifacts. What if he had been stopped 10 years earlier? If you weigh the scales of ‘one man murdered versus tens of thousands’, it’s still hard to say.
This is where it comes down to the talk of violence. I still agree, that violence cannot be used to counteract violence. That will never end well. But don’t confuse violence with action. Violence is a state of mind. It is action motivated by hatred. But not all action is motivated by hatred. Some action is motivated by self-preservation, some by a knowledge of what is ‘right’, some by pure love. Some years ago, I had to put my dog down, because he was suffering from Lymphoma. I held him in my arms, while they administered his lethal shot, but I did so with pure love in my heart.
When the monk killed King Langdarma, he wasn’t angry, there was just an injustice that needed to be stopped.
So, are Buddhists wimps? It depends on which Buddhists you are talking about. Historically, NO! Buddhists are pretty bad-assed!
Urban Sannyasin 