![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rushthatspeaksA book Thrud brought home for me from the university-- she has always had the habit of bringing home books she does not have time to read herself and seeing whether I will read them and tell her about them, and if I find them interesting I do.
Buddhist Warfare is an anthology about precisely that: the philosophical basis of warfare waged by Buddhists; the theological corollaries of violence; the history of various wars involving Buddhists including wars between sects, wars of suppression both against and by Buddhists, and the role of Zen in World War II; and analysis of the discourses and the written histories surrounding these wars, along with discussion of cultural images of Buddhist pacifism and their relationship to the historical record.
I know so little about the subject matter of this book that I have to rely entirely on observation of the methodology of the scholarship to tell you whether I think it is any good. I think it is very good. The entire book is insistent on the polyvalent nature of Buddhism, to the point where several of the authors use 'Buddhisms' to remind the reader that the many distinctions between country, sect, historical period, etc. mean that very few tenets of belief, if any, can be said to be believed by all Buddhists. The contributors are balanced fairly evenly between persons who identify as practicing Buddhists and persons who say they are not, and between those with antecedents in countries with large Buddhist populations and those without. The notes are ample, the primary sources continually cited, the ethnography remembers that its subjects are people with valid opinions and not merely research subjects, and I could not find one single trace of that annoying syndrome one sometimes gets in academic books about East and South-East Asia where things are only considered relevant insofar as they affected European something-or-other. In fact, this book states explicitly that it was produced partly in an attempt to counter some persistent oversimplifications of Buddhism: "The motivations for this volume are many, but chief among them is the goal of disrupting the social imaginary that holds Buddhist traditions to be exclusively pacifistic and exotic." (Introduction, p.i)
And they define all their terms! And argue with their own definitions! They discuss violence that isn't warfare, and how nationalisms, political considerations, attitudes towards suicide, abortion, and euthanasia affect warfare and war's discussion. The principal tension of the book is between the incontrovertible, textually evident ideal of pacifism, and the question of why, if the self does not exist, if the body does not exist, if the world is illusion, it should matter whether you kill anybody. There are detours into the question of whether it's all right for bodhisattvas to kill anybody, either, given that they are enlightened and whatever they do therefore is supposed to have merit. This is quite a short book, but there's really a lot packed into it.
The essays are arranged pretty much chronologically, and include: a look at the monastic military support that helped the rise of the Tang Dynasty in China (and the enduring military reputation of the monastery at Shaolin). A discussion of the role of kingship in Buddhism in India and how the powers of kings to perpetrate violence are legitimized in several sutras. An overview of the historiography of the wars surrounding the Fifth Dalai Lama and the ways in which his self-identification with Avalokitesvara helped him legitimize his coming to power through sectarian battle. An explanation of the forced conversion of the population of Mongolia to Buddhism and the persecution of shamanism by the fourteenth-century khans, the way that this strengthened the khans' kingship due to the strong historical association of Tibetan lamas with Chinggiz Khan and the founding of the Mongolian imperial state, and a description of the way these ideologies trickled down to the Mongolian theocracy of the early twentieth century. A look at the way that Buddhists after the rise of Communism were a force in China in support of the Korean War, and why. I would have been willing to read an entire book based on any of those, and they weren't even the standouts.
There are three standouts. Brian Daizen Victoria's article is fascinating because, as a practicing Zen priest, he feels able to challenge the theological and philosophical bases of the Japanese Zen schools which beginning in the late nineteenth century saw loyalty to the emperor as a direct path to enlightenment. I don't have the information to say whether I agree with him, but it is very interesting to see a well-written and well-presented article in which the author is willing to say flat out that he thinks the people he is talking about are Very, Very Wrong. He comes to the conclusion that they cannot be real Buddhists, and I can't tell whether I think his religious convictions strengthen or weaken the thrust of his article. Certainly different, and very compelling.
Also, both ethnographic studies in the book are spectacular. Daniel W. Kent's study of the sermons preached by Buddhist monks to armies in Sri Lanka in 2006 is compassionate and riveting. He interviewed soldiers to ask them what questions they ask monks, and monks to ask what questions soldiers ask them, and what they answer. His article looks at the essential conflicts present in spiritually counseling soldiers when the counselor cannot believe their profession moral, and the ways in which doctrine has to bend, and the ways it can't. It's a facet of warfare I have never seen examined in this way before.
And Michael Jerryson's article is just as vital and just as compassionate-- he went to Thailand in 2008, and his observations of the way that Thai Buddhism is becoming something of a militarized zone in the face of terrorism and martial law are heartbreaking. He looks at the way that monasteries have become centers for refugees, drawn in on themselves and guarded by the army, and the gradual breaking of community around them; and at the phenomenon of military monks, young men trained as soldiers and then sent by the army for ordination, who enter a monastery as an armed protector and consider themselves both monk and soldier. Officially they are a myth, but he met several. Their theological justification boils down to "someone has to do it".
Read this. It's just dazzlingly informative, about things that are important about the way the world is now, the way the world works. This sort of thing is what scholarship is meant to do. I am sure that if I had more background in these fields, I would be more able to identify flaws, more able to notice details that might be problematic; but, even without that, I am confident enough in my ability to evaluate scholarship to say that this book is useful, and good, and partakes of truth as these writers can determine it, to the best of their ability. Which is the best that I can say about a book.
Buddhist Warfare is an anthology about precisely that: the philosophical basis of warfare waged by Buddhists; the theological corollaries of violence; the history of various wars involving Buddhists including wars between sects, wars of suppression both against and by Buddhists, and the role of Zen in World War II; and analysis of the discourses and the written histories surrounding these wars, along with discussion of cultural images of Buddhist pacifism and their relationship to the historical record.
I know so little about the subject matter of this book that I have to rely entirely on observation of the methodology of the scholarship to tell you whether I think it is any good. I think it is very good. The entire book is insistent on the polyvalent nature of Buddhism, to the point where several of the authors use 'Buddhisms' to remind the reader that the many distinctions between country, sect, historical period, etc. mean that very few tenets of belief, if any, can be said to be believed by all Buddhists. The contributors are balanced fairly evenly between persons who identify as practicing Buddhists and persons who say they are not, and between those with antecedents in countries with large Buddhist populations and those without. The notes are ample, the primary sources continually cited, the ethnography remembers that its subjects are people with valid opinions and not merely research subjects, and I could not find one single trace of that annoying syndrome one sometimes gets in academic books about East and South-East Asia where things are only considered relevant insofar as they affected European something-or-other. In fact, this book states explicitly that it was produced partly in an attempt to counter some persistent oversimplifications of Buddhism: "The motivations for this volume are many, but chief among them is the goal of disrupting the social imaginary that holds Buddhist traditions to be exclusively pacifistic and exotic." (Introduction, p.i)
And they define all their terms! And argue with their own definitions! They discuss violence that isn't warfare, and how nationalisms, political considerations, attitudes towards suicide, abortion, and euthanasia affect warfare and war's discussion. The principal tension of the book is between the incontrovertible, textually evident ideal of pacifism, and the question of why, if the self does not exist, if the body does not exist, if the world is illusion, it should matter whether you kill anybody. There are detours into the question of whether it's all right for bodhisattvas to kill anybody, either, given that they are enlightened and whatever they do therefore is supposed to have merit. This is quite a short book, but there's really a lot packed into it.
The essays are arranged pretty much chronologically, and include: a look at the monastic military support that helped the rise of the Tang Dynasty in China (and the enduring military reputation of the monastery at Shaolin). A discussion of the role of kingship in Buddhism in India and how the powers of kings to perpetrate violence are legitimized in several sutras. An overview of the historiography of the wars surrounding the Fifth Dalai Lama and the ways in which his self-identification with Avalokitesvara helped him legitimize his coming to power through sectarian battle. An explanation of the forced conversion of the population of Mongolia to Buddhism and the persecution of shamanism by the fourteenth-century khans, the way that this strengthened the khans' kingship due to the strong historical association of Tibetan lamas with Chinggiz Khan and the founding of the Mongolian imperial state, and a description of the way these ideologies trickled down to the Mongolian theocracy of the early twentieth century. A look at the way that Buddhists after the rise of Communism were a force in China in support of the Korean War, and why. I would have been willing to read an entire book based on any of those, and they weren't even the standouts.
There are three standouts. Brian Daizen Victoria's article is fascinating because, as a practicing Zen priest, he feels able to challenge the theological and philosophical bases of the Japanese Zen schools which beginning in the late nineteenth century saw loyalty to the emperor as a direct path to enlightenment. I don't have the information to say whether I agree with him, but it is very interesting to see a well-written and well-presented article in which the author is willing to say flat out that he thinks the people he is talking about are Very, Very Wrong. He comes to the conclusion that they cannot be real Buddhists, and I can't tell whether I think his religious convictions strengthen or weaken the thrust of his article. Certainly different, and very compelling.
Also, both ethnographic studies in the book are spectacular. Daniel W. Kent's study of the sermons preached by Buddhist monks to armies in Sri Lanka in 2006 is compassionate and riveting. He interviewed soldiers to ask them what questions they ask monks, and monks to ask what questions soldiers ask them, and what they answer. His article looks at the essential conflicts present in spiritually counseling soldiers when the counselor cannot believe their profession moral, and the ways in which doctrine has to bend, and the ways it can't. It's a facet of warfare I have never seen examined in this way before.
And Michael Jerryson's article is just as vital and just as compassionate-- he went to Thailand in 2008, and his observations of the way that Thai Buddhism is becoming something of a militarized zone in the face of terrorism and martial law are heartbreaking. He looks at the way that monasteries have become centers for refugees, drawn in on themselves and guarded by the army, and the gradual breaking of community around them; and at the phenomenon of military monks, young men trained as soldiers and then sent by the army for ordination, who enter a monastery as an armed protector and consider themselves both monk and soldier. Officially they are a myth, but he met several. Their theological justification boils down to "someone has to do it".
Read this. It's just dazzlingly informative, about things that are important about the way the world is now, the way the world works. This sort of thing is what scholarship is meant to do. I am sure that if I had more background in these fields, I would be more able to identify flaws, more able to notice details that might be problematic; but, even without that, I am confident enough in my ability to evaluate scholarship to say that this book is useful, and good, and partakes of truth as these writers can determine it, to the best of their ability. Which is the best that I can say about a book.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: an impressive anlaysis
Date: 2010-10-08 03:10 pm (UTC)