Sila should be taken seriously Mr Blair. Sila is essentially, the act of morality. Let me explain this more. As a Buddhist, one should always try and live in the best possible way, by acting thoughtfully. If one does not act thoughtfully, then we believe that it will be impossible to gain perfection. Essentially, Mr Blair, Sila teaches us to be more aware, and act according to justice, and with principles of benevolence towards all beings.
Sila therefore, can be linked to the principle of Ahmisa. Ahmisa is the loving, and caring act that one shows towards all creatures. Imagine this, Mr Blair, one has a job of a fishmonger. Every day, he sees fish being killed and thrown into the nets. One day, he looks at the fish in pity, and decides that they are suffering in the same way as humans suffer when being killed. He then looks at himself, and sees what he has done. He decides never to harm and living being again. This is exemplifies the exact nature of Ahmisa. The concept in which we understand that life is precious, and such a jewel in its preciousness, that it must not be taken away. So, Mr Blair, it is the practise of real, and ultimate benevolence that should always be carried out.
Upon acting in the way of Ahmisa, one should always look towards Karma, and Metta. Metta, first of all, is the idea of a sublime state. In that, one must show loving kindness and wish others well, while of course, wishing yourself well. To give you an analogy of metta, imagine yourself as a lieutenant of the German army, in 1942. You are head of a prison camp for Jewish prisoners. Constantly, every day, you see prisoners being starved, tortured, killed, whipped and burned. You feel constant pity for these people, and always feel the need to let them free. Well, one day you do let them free, and in this sense, you have shown the purity of your heart, and shown an act of loving kindness.
Metta is an act of loving kindness, and it is precisely this act of loving kindness that produces Karma. Karma is the concept that all actions have consequences, and that it depends on whether or not you produce these good actions, for you getting a good rebirth. Let me give you another example, you are walking along a street in Tibet, and you see a poor man, sitting in the corner, with just a small dog to keep company. You suddenly feel pity for this man, and you go into a marketplace, and you buy fresh fruits and vegetables for him. He feels so happy, and keeps on thanking you. This act has produced good karma, because you have had the right intention, and the right state of perception, and thus donating to the man. This good karma will help you gain merit, and this merit helps you to escape the cycle of Samsara (the continual rebirth cycle).
Karuna is also very much linked with all the above ideas. Karuna is the state of active compassion, and being able to share suffering. Imagine this Mr Blair, a member of the community is walking past the streets, and sees a group of men and women in despair, and in a desperate situation. He comes up and asks them, “ What are you crying about, what has happened?” They then reply, “ We have lost our money, and our home. We have nothing to live for”. He then comes up to them, and comforts them, telling them that everything will work out for them. They reply to him, “We are so glad that somebody at least understands us”. This is the exact nature of Karuna. It is the fact that one understands other people’s problems and shares their sufferings.
Mr Blair, one of the most important principles of Buddhism you should consider, is the principle of Kshanti. Kshanti is patience, and I will present this idea in another analogy. Imagine yourself as the Commander of a USA army, and you are pondering on whether you should plan an offensive against a region in Vietnam. You are under pressure, and don’t know what to do. Your generals, and Chief Officers are barricading you. So, you are in a situation where you are desperate for Kshanti. This is exactly what it is, the need for patience. You must not hasten, but always be patient, and stop and think what you are about to do, to see whether it is a correct decision or otherwise. So, essentially, patience is the key to deciding Mr Blair.
Finally, there is the chief principle of them all, Upaya Kausala (Skilful Means). The problem with rules is that no two people act the same. What is essentially right for one isn’t for the other. The paramitas, which includes Sila, Kshanti, Prajna, Samadhi, Dana and Virya, are not rules, but are pointers, to the life of happiness, healthiness, and wisdom. A wise person will be able to know what to do in a situation, and how to do it. However, the main point is that this takes skill, rather than just blind faith, and obedience to rules. For Buddhists, intention is the most important aspect and by this intention, which means skilful, one can hope to achieve wisdom. So essentially, skilful, is the means of intention.
A Buddhist attitude to this problem of Iraq is very complex, Mr Blair. First of all, a Buddhist should never be an aggressor, even if it means protecting one’s own religion. He must always try his best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes he may be forced to go to war by others who do not accept the concept of brotherhood, as was taught by the Buddha. He may however, join the struggle of fellow man from oppression, and here, he is duty-bound, since it is the struggle for peace and freedom, but only in defence. He cannot be blamed, therefore, for this act, since he is in an act of justified defence. However, if everybody followed the Buddha’s example, then there would be no need for war in this world, so hence, It is the duty of every cultured man to find all possible ways and means to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, without declaring war to kill his fellow men. The Buddha did not teach His followers to surrender to any form of evil power, be it man or supernatural being. Indeed, with reason and science, man could conquer nature, and yet man has not yet even secured his own life. Why is life so much in danger? Man has forgotten that he has a heart, which has been neglected and has been left to wither and be polluted by passion. If we cannot secure our own lives, then how can we secure world peace? To obtain world peace, we must be humble, and objective, always training our minds to reach the facts. We should also share the richness of the earth with equity and equality. We can never make sure that there is always equality, but we must make sure there is equity.
It is just very unfair, that 5% of the world’s population, is consuming 50% of the worlds food, and that 25% of the world should be overfed, while 75% are hungry and starving. Peace, will only come about, when nations are willing to share, the rich to help the poor, the poor to help the rich, thus sending out metta, and goodwill. Only if and when these conditions are met, can we envision a world with no excuse for wars.
The madness of the armaments race must stop! We must try to build schools instead of cruisers, hospitals instead of nuclear weapons. The amount of money and human lives that various governments waste in the battlefield should be diverted to build up the economics for a standard of living. Don’t waste time and money on troops and battlefields; build things that will improve society. War is never the answer.
The world can never have peace, until man denounces all selfish desires for materialistic possessions. We must give up the race for power, and possession. Wealth and invasion cannot secure happiness. Only religion is able to affect someone spiritually, in that it affects the mind.
All religions teach people not to kill; but unfortunately this important precept is conveniently ignored. Today, with modern armaments, man can kill millions within one second, that is, more than primitive tribes did in a century. It is very unfortunate that leaders such as Saddam Hussein, and Usama bin Laden, in certain countries, bring religious labels, slogans and banners into their battlefields. They do not know that they are disgracing the good name of their religion.
We can happily say, that Buddhists have caused no war over the last 2,500 years, as a result of dynamic character, and the concept of tolerance in the Buddha’s teaching.
There is the continuous debate about whether or not a Buddhist should join the army. There is the aspect, that one who deserves punishment should be punished. Don’t harm any living being without justification. When one punishes and restrains an oppressor, the crimes that he has committed, is his own wrong doing, and the injuries he receives, is his own fault. This will allow him to progress, since it will allow him to become more aware of himself, and be able to console his mind. All warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. However, when one confronts those who have dismissed all ideas to maintain peace, must be restrained by those who have tried by all means o keep conflict at bay. Struggle must exist, for all life is a struggle of some kind, but make certain that you do not struggle in the interest of self against truth and justice. He, who struggles out of self-interest to make himself great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward, and no karma, making a bad rebirth. Struggle with courage and with wisdom. He who struggles with the pureness of the heart will expect success, and freedom, for he is struggling for the right intentions. He, who is not, will expect failure, and bad merit.
According to Buddhism mercy killing cannot be justified. Mercy and killing can never go together. Some people kill their pets on the grounds that they do not like to see the pets suffer. However, if mercy killing is the correct method to be practised on pets and other animals, then why are people so reluctant to do the same to their beloved ones? This act may be called euthanasia. Some people may say that the sight of relieving someone of pain may be a good act, and that it brings about an end of suffering. However, the act of killing, is still an act of killing, and will produce terrible results. There is no doubt that the intention is good, but it is killing. Even though killing out of good intention and right thought is better than out of jealousy and hatred, they both produce the same sort of results. On the other hand, a being (man or animal) may suffer owing to his bad karma. If by mercy killing, we prevent the working out of one’s bad karma, the debt will have to be paid in another existence. As Buddhists, all that we can do is to help to reduce the pain and suffering on others.
The final point I would like to make on Buddhists attitude, is killing for self-protection, which is a major issue YOU state in the argument about Iraq. The Buddha has advised everyone to abstain from killing. If everybody accepts this advice, human beings would not kill each other. In the case where a person’s life is threatened, the Buddha says even then it is not advisable to kill out of self-protection. The weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who practises this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortune. However, man loves his life so much that he is not prepared to surrender himself to others; in actual practice, most people would struggle for self-protection. It is natural and every living being struggles and kills others for self-protection but the karmic effect depends on their mental attitude. If he is going into battle (or war), with the intention for defence, and kills somebody, then the person is not responsible for his actions, since he has right intention. However, if one goes into battle wanting to kill, and kills, then he will be responsible for the consequences. We must remember that killing is killing; when we disapprove of it, we call it murder. When we punish man for murdering, we call it ‘capital punishment’. If an enemy kills our own soldiers we call it ‘slaughter’. However, if we approve a killing, we call it war. But if we remove the emotional content from these words, we can understand that killing is killing.
In recent years many scientists and some religionists have used the expressions like ‘humane killing’, ‘mercy killing’, ‘gentle killing’ and ‘painless killing’ to justify the ending of a life. They argue that if the victim feels no pain, if the knife is sharp, killing is justified. Buddhism can never accept these arguments because it is not how the killing occurs that is important, but the fact that another terminates a life of one being. Nobody has a right to do that, for whatever reason.
So, Mr Blair, a Buddhist must weigh up all these issues, and more importantly, whether this war is for defence, or inhumane attack for no reason. Civilians never have any right to die; they are completely innocent.
There are three types of Buddhism Mr Blair, and each has different way of approaching the situation, although they are similar:
Theravada Buddhism
Theravada Buddhists, have many scriptures from early Buddhists. The Tipitaka (in Pali is widely used as a resource for Ethics, since it is an understanding of past lives. Theravada has more ethical points of view from the Buddha, and has more traditional types of view. As in, many of the concepts taken on board, are old ones, and they don’t really have much flexibility. Despite this, they are concrete based, and are very bold in context. So, Theravada is the basic teachings of the Buddha, and has the more traditional ethics rather than liberal ethics
Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhism is more liberal, and appeals to lay people more than any other. The ideas contained within it are more on thoughtful progress, and intellectual thinking. Buddha’s texts are used as the basis for understanding, and progress is made from there. Mahayana Buddhists accept the fact that Theravada has some principles which should be acknowledged, but believe their vehicle is greater. So, to sum up, Mahayana is a more flexible and more comprehensive style of Theravada Buddhism, so it therefore has more flexible ethics.
Tibetan Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism very much concentrates on ethics. Tibetans believe, that the world is a constant cycle of problems, and that these must be dealt with. Tibetans believe that if you have inner peace, external problems do not affect your deep sense of peace and tranquillity. In that state of mind you can deal with situations with calmness and reason, while keeping your inner happiness.
So, Mr Blair, I hope that I have made a real effort to give my case on the war with Iraq. I do not ask you to definitely do what I suggested, but think about them. Become more aware of your surroundings, and do not hasten into practise. Think about the principles and ideas I have put forward, good luck!
Dalai Lama
