Baraka_Guru

From the Dhammapada VIII Thousands:
Greater in battle
than the man who would conquer
a thousand-thousand men,
is he who would conquer
just one --
himself.


Will, I don't think a period of absolutely no war is plausible... just like that: "let's try a week of no war." There are too many factors, reasons, conditions, what have you, making it impossible to "orchestrate" that kind of peace. The very suggestion is a hopeful "what if" scenario, but I don't think it is realistic. What I do feel is realistic, however, is that those with the most power would do well to be the first to embark on a lifestyle of peace. For example, if the U.S. were to suddenly take on a role of compassionate benefactor, they would be influential enough to encourage other powerful nations to do the same. This would possibly trigger a chain reaction, especially if you consider the amplitude of compassion if it played a role in international relations and trade. Take away the misery of even the most turbulent nations, and you just might take away the reasons to kill.

What a defeatist thing to say. Just because there are Buddhists who aren't rooted in action as true Buddhists should be, it doesn't mean the Buddhist teachings should be overlooked. I read a story of a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who was forced to fight against the Americans during the war. He spend his time trying his best to shoot over their heads so as not to harm them, while making it look like he was fighting them. Not everyone could be expected to act in the same way, but certainly this is an inspirational story that would encourage us to improve the world. We don't all need to be Buddhas, but we would do well to integrate his teachings. They are universal. He doesn't own them; he discovered them as our underlying reality.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot