• feature
  • MONDAY SEPTEMBER 3 2007 12:00 PM

Brad Warner's Hardcore Zen: Buddhism Through Violence

While I was in Phoenix, a couple months ago Barry Graham, a Zen teacher in the Rinzai lineage out there turned me on to an article called “Spaces in the Sky” written by Stephen Batchelor in response to the events of September 11, 2001. It originally appeared in the Winter 2001 issue of Tricycle magazine and is now on-line at Batchelor’s website. Barry recalled the article as stating that our right to practice Buddhism is underwritten by violence. That’s not what the article says exactly, but it’s easy to see how he could have remembered it that way. What Batchelor actually says is, “Our freedoms and privileges in a liberal democracy are ultimately guaranteed by the willingness of the state to use violence to protect them.” Later he asks, “Is an open society that tolerates dissent even possible without its being underwritten by violence?”

Batchelor points out that the Buddhist dictum in the Dharmapada that, “Hatred will not cease by hatred but only by love alone” is often used by Buddhists to justify a complacent attitude when their freedom to practice was threatened. Batchelor gives examples of cases where Buddhists have allowed themselves to be massacred in order to uphold their commitment to non-violence. He also points out that Tibet accepted military protection from China hoping they would be allowed to continue practicing their faith without having to protect it militarily themselves. This strategy backfired big time.

Whether Batchelor actually said it in so many words or not the idea that our freedom to practice Buddhism is underwritten by violence is an important one worth looking at closely especially for practitioners in the United States today. In my travels around the country I’ve noticed that most American Buddhists are strongly opposed to President Bush and his military policies. This opposition seems to stem from their notion that, as Buddhists, we must stand opposed to all forms of violence. But I wonder if it’s realistic for Buddhists to be opposed to all forms of violence in the way that most Buddhists in the US conceive of that notion.

Yesterday I got to talk to the members of the band Millions of Dead Cops, a group that the band I was in, Zero Defex, opened up for numerous times in 1982-83. Back then the subject of anarchism used to come up a lot in our discussions of punk philosophy. The idea of anarchy sounded very cool. But, as much as we hated the cops, all of us knew that, whether we wanted to admit it or not, our ability to walk down the streets of Akron, Ohio in 1982 in our green Mohawks and leather jackets was largely underwritten by the threat of violence by the cops against the many rednecks in the area who would likely have massacred us gleefully if not for fear of reprisal by the police. The cops were there to protect our freedom of expression. Were it not for them, the less forward thinking elements of the community might not have been so tolerant of the way we flaunted their conventions. We found this out in a very concrete way when we played a show in a rural town in Southern Ohio and had to be saved by the cops from an angry mob of bearded bikers who didn’t care for the way we looked or the music we played.

In much the same way in the world at large today the freedom we have in Western countries to practice Buddhism -- or indeed many other socially deviant philosophies and practices like punk rock, tattooing, homosexuality and all the rest -- is guaranteed to a large extent by the fact that we are protected by the biggest and scariest military force the world has ever known. There are certainly plenty of folks out there who would like to see us stop practicing whatever beliefs we have and be forced to adopt theirs or die.

The world is a sandbox in back of an elementary school. The exact same dynamics that play out in the playground play out in the world of politics and nations. We need a big bully on our side. That may not be something to be proud of. But it's a fact. To deny that fact is absolutely unrealistic. Buddhism is never unrealistic.

It is true that Buddhism seeks to end the need for the use of violence. However, we can’t jump to the conclusion that if we only just all disarmed everybody would be cool. The problem is to understand why we still need violence to underwrite freedom.

We won’t stop violence by dressing up in paisley frocks and sticking daisies in the barrels of AK-47s. Such action is still motivated by ego. It is based on the idea that I, Mr. Buddhist Pacifist, am better than you, you nasty Republican warmonger. The very same force that makes violence an unavoidable part of human life is the one that tries, through a different kind of violence, to overcome violence. This is really what Buddha meant by saying that hatred is not overcome by hatred. We need to find a way to completely step out of our habitual modes of reaction in order to find the real solution to our very pressing problems.

The only way to do this is to truly understand who we are and to allow that understanding to spread gradually throughout the world. As Buddhists it may not be necessary for we, ourselves, to go out and participate in the violence perpetrated to protect our right to practice -- though there is certainly nothing at all wrong with being a practicing Buddhist and member of the military. But it also does not benefit our practice to stand in the way of the necessary steps being taken to uphold our right to practice.

War is bad. I’m going to write that again just so no one mistakenly thinks I believe otherwise. War is bad. War is very, very bad. It’s a tragedy when non-combatants are injured and killed by war. It’s also a tragedy when combatants are injured and killed by war. I want war to end just as passionately as anyone else. But unrealistic solutions only serve to delay the real solution to the problem. This is an urgent problem, one that requires serious attention. What I see in the pacifist movement more often than not these days, I’m afraid, is a lack of serious commitment to the real ending of war.

Batchelor states that, “One can imagine this verse (about hate only being overcome by love) being intoned by Indian Buddhist monks while their monasteries burned, just as now devout e-mail messages are dispatched to the White House urging restraint and compassion. And just as its sentiments were ineffective in turning back the tide of Muslim aggression in India, so they may be equally ineffective in halting the course of violent retaliation against latter-day Islamic terrorism.”

Right on, brother.

The solution to the problem of violence is complex and I’m not even going to try to outline some course of action right here on Labor Day on Suicide Girls. But I think it’s vital that we understand the way the threat of violence, as well as real violence itself, makes it possible for us to practice. Nuff said, for now.

Here’s where I’ll be in the coming weeks (please don’t get violent with me there):

Boulder & Ft. Collins, Colorado:
• Monday September 10, 2007 - 7:30 pm Boulder Bookstore 1107 Pearl Street - Author Event

• Tuesday September 11, 2007 Noon – Colorado State University Bookstore - The Lory Student Center at CSU Ft. Collins, CO

• Tuesday September 11, 2007 7 PM - CSU Anthropology Club The Lory Student Center at CSU, Ft. Collins - Author Event

• Wednesday, September 12, 2007 Interview for Elevision TV show. Be part of the live in-studio audience! Doors close at 7pm. The show will be at Trilogy, 2017 13th St. in downtown Boulder

Cleveland, Ohio
• Saturday October 6, 2007 9:15 PM, Cleveland Premier of my movie "Cleveland's Screaming!" at the Celevland Institute of Art

Akron, Ohio:
November 7,2007 at the Akron Public Library

Brad Warner is the author of Hardcore Zen and Sit Down and Shut Up!. He maintains a blog about Buddhist stuff. If you're in Southern California and you want to try some Zazen for yourself, he has a group that meets every Saturday in Santa Monica. This is open to anyone who wants to show up.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
mellon

mellon

USA
October 2004

SEP 05, 2007 09:19 AM

I dont believe that we can unilaterally say that violence in te name of self preservation is bad under any circumstance.



Why would you want to say anything at all about what Buddhism teaches, when you're not a Buddhist?

If you're not a Buddhist, it's perfectly reasonable to follow a philosophy that's partly Buddhism, and partly of your own invention, or not at all Buddhism, or whatever. As a Buddhist practitioner, I might even learn something from you from listening to your reasoning.

But there's no ambiguity at all about killing in the sutras. So for a Buddhist practitioner who thinks that the sutras are a method, and not just a philosophy, we don't have to state anything unilaterally. We're just following the recipe.

JamesCole

JamesCole

I'm lost
July 2007

SEP 09, 2007 03:32 PM

mellon said:
But there's no ambiguity at all about killing in the sutras. So for a Buddhist practitioner who thinks that the sutras are a method, and not just a philosophy, we don't have to state anything unilaterally. We're just following the recipe.



If you truly believe that, why are you still here? You cannot live but through the death of sentient beings.

FullyCooked

FullyCooked

I'm lost
September 2007

SEP 11, 2007 11:08 AM

This article on the whole I found pretty UN-En-lightend. Seems to prance around and hint that what has gone on in the middle east since 9/11 (a F*** of a lot of suffering) is neccicary to protect our freedom "so we can practice buddhism", without actually having the balls to come out and say it straight. After all, those black hat muslims, all of them, want to take our freedom to do zazen and put all our women in burqa's straight up, they are licking their lips right now, writeing down plans. Does this have ANY chance of happening even if the states had no real army?

The bubbleheaded peaceniks may be making their ego's purr by standing against war, but what about the whole idea of being a 'buddhist' that needs to practice but must first be protected from a vague alien enemy? What about letting go into the unknown and the feeling of the need to be protected, seems a little free-er to me. Isn't this kind of interplay of Bullshit what makes up an ego in the first place?

Also Buddhists are not jews, just cause the islamic empire invaded india an age ago and screwed over the 'buddhists' at the time does not give modern 'buddhists' an axe to grind. A Buddha is an Awake person right now, not a cultural identity unless it is taken as such, which is fine too but not 'harcore zen' *cough* dealing with reality.

Anyway, sorry to be rude just strongly disagree.


chemzen

chemzen

State College, PA
July 2007

SEP 11, 2007 04:32 PM

I have been re-reading Mr. Warner's article along with the following commentaries off and on since it has been posted. What is interesting is that it seems quite obvious that there are some people who "get" the article and some that don't "get it" at all (see above comment).

I think anybody who thinks that this article is about war in the middle east needs to seriously consider taking a class on critical thinking. I believe the point that Brad may be attempting to make (and maybe I am totally wrong, it's been known to happen more often than not) isn't really that violence is necessary to have freedoms, but rather there are fundamental problems with all of us everywhere and it is those fundamental problems that are causing the real grief and suffering. Violence (either to hurt us or protect us) and war are manifestations of those problems.

Unfortunately because of these endemic problems in societies across the world, we realistically may require violence to ensure freedoms (as per Brad's examples). However the solution to suffering isn't merely to be all pacifist and dance around with daisies, but it is to find an end to the suffering that plagues the world. Once that suffering ceases, then violence - and need of it - will cease.

As Brad stated, "We need to find a way to completely step out of our habitual modes of reaction in order to find the real solution to our very pressing problems."
Shooting people in the Middle East is not a real solution, likewise camping out in a tent in Texas bitching about shooting people in the Middle East is not a real solution either.

FullyCooked

FullyCooked

I'm lost
September 2007

SEP 11, 2007 05:12 PM

Chemzen - I wouldn't say it was just about the middle east but that situation was mentioned directly and indirectly several times.

I wouldn't deny that having an efficient military for protection isn't wise to have, the notion that having 'a bully on our side' is a good thing and the idea that violence is needed secure my personal space. I think it has more to do with getting wrapped up with drama of the state.

chemzen

chemzen

State College, PA
July 2007

SEP 11, 2007 06:28 PM

Actually the Middle East was never mentioned the article (neither was Iraq for that matter) but there have been plenty of other references to it by other people. That being said he did mention the President's policies, which I guess can be a non-stated inference but again that should hardly count as "several times." It is just simply a way-beyond-obvious example of bad shit going down someplace.

Anyhow . . . it doesn't matter. I feel that you may still not be thinking this all of the way through to the core but are rather caught up with the current wars, military actions, or whatever you want to call them. Rather the point is why do we have those wars and violence in the first place? And, the answer is in no way at all about oil, money, or 19 insane dimwits flying planes into buildings. The real problem is entirely more fundamental than that, which is then expressed as war, violence, hatred, and so forth. How to identify the fundamental problems and fix those - well that is entirely a different matter altogether. I suppose a baby step would be for everybody to shut up and sit down.

The bit about having "a bully on our side" makes sense in light of how the world works (i.e. it is a realistic, albeit unfortunate, necessity). Though the question really should be, "Why do you have to have that bully on your side to secure your personal space?" I think that, in fact, it is completely the oppose of "getting wrapped up with the drama of the state" but rather a question of getting down to what is really truly the problem with all of us. Once we figure that out (if ever) then we won't need a bully to protect our personal spaces and our ability to stare at a wall.

FullyCooked

FullyCooked

I'm lost
September 2007

SEP 12, 2007 04:22 AM

I actually picked up Brad's first book and read half of it last night which I am liking alot. Anyway, I get the impression that parts of the article were written kind of flippantly and probably I read it kind of flippantly.

I still think that the example of returning love and service for hate is one of spirituality's and humanities highest teachings and one of the absolute hardest and most heroic to follow properly.

PlanNumberOne

PlanNumberOne

Norway
February 2005

SEP 12, 2007 10:05 AM

Good article. I think of these things every time some li´l punk spraypaints fuck the police on a wall.
Not that there´s anything wrong with that.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next