[Buddha-l] Buddhism and History

[Joy Vriens]

Dear James,

<snipped because of total agreement>

> Since he is here talking about positive and negative consequences, this 
> is a somewhat different matter, and he was probably talking about the 
> same thing in the English article.  It's possible that one of the 
> consequences of these war-criminal acts will be the wariness of the US 
> public (and perhaps even the legislature) when it comes to reposing 
> trust in the war-making rationalizations of the US executive.  But our 
> victims have paid a very high price for any awakening that may occur 
> here.  Is it worth it?  Nonetheless, such a result could be said to be 
> "positive."

But for whom or for what? What does it mean when we say "time will 
tell", or "history" or "History" ("world history exhibits nothing other 
than the plan of providence" Hegel) ? What does that imply for our moral 
conduct *here and now*? And what causes will be linked up to what 
consequences in the view of history? If Europe (especially the countries 
most touched by wars and having witnessed them on their own territory) 
has become so totally wary of warfare, that it is less military action 
prone, is that a positive thing (although hawks would say no) made 
possible by all the warfare and misery? Does that make all the warfare 
and misery acceptable?

And by saying "time will tell" aren't we accepting the idea that we 
sacrify ourselves, others, generations, the present etc. to make greater 
happiness possible for future generations. And what sort of happiness 
would that be ? Is it perhaps simply for the sake of survival of the 
human race ? What would be good about that? Or for a Buddhist teacher, 
the emptying out of samsara? What is that teleological happiness that 
will justify sacrifices made or imposed now?

And if we are so obsessed with what history or time will tell and go to 
war for that reason, then why not put at least the same effort in 
anticipating catastrophes caused by global heating, poverty, AIDS etc.?

That History is misused by some, that misuse anything they can anyway, I 
disapprove of but understand, because it fits in with their general 
attitude, but that someone like HHDL accepts that argument I can't 
comprehend. Perhaps it is a sort of political concession or effort to 
please.

> He is careful to state that in practice war always creates problems, 
> even if it is at times theoretically justified, and that dialogue and 
> compromise are the best avenues to solutions of our conflicts.  It seems 
> to me that he means "later we'll see if any good comes out of these 
> wars," which is defensible.  I'm certainly open to disagreement, though, 
> if anyone reads this differently.  If he means they may be _justified_ 
> by their eventual consequences, then I think he goofed.

Perhaps he was talking from different perspectives. As a politician, one 
has to think long term and for the general benefit of one's country. 
Proves again IMO that the two hats HHDL is wearing, can't be worn by the 
same person. I simply don't believe in philosopher-kings or theocrats.